Wakilii

Noormohamed v Khamisa (C.C. No. 197-1930)

East African Court of Appeal · [1937] EACA 201 · 1937 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for arrest and imprisonment of judgment-debtor in execution of decree
Decision
Application granted; judgment-creditor permitted to proceed with arrest and imprisonment of judgment-debtor

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The court held that the 12-year limitation period under section 35(1) of the Civil Procedure Ordinance 1924 applies to execution proceedings where an application for execution has been made, not the 3-year period under Article 179 of the Indian Limitation Act 1877. The order for payment by instalments dated 18 December 1931 constituted a step in execution from which the 12-year period runs. The application for arrest and imprisonment made on 26 February 1937 was therefore within time.

Outcome

Application granted; judgment-creditor permitted to proceed with arrest and imprisonment of judgment-debtor

Facts

The plaintiff obtained a decree against the defendant on 10 April 1931. On 18 December 1931, following an application for the arrest and imprisonment of the judgment-debtor, the court ordered payment of the decretal amount by instalments of Sh. 50 per month. No payment was made under this order, the only payment being Sh. 50 on 12 June 1931. On 26 February 1937, over five years after the instalment order, the plaintiff applied for the arrest and imprisonment of the judgment-debtor. The defendant argued that the application was barred by limitation, having been made more than three years after the last step in execution.

Issues

  1. Whether the period of limitation for execution of a decree is 3 years under Article 179(4) of the Indian Limitation Act 1877 or 12 years under section 35(1) of the Civil Procedure Ordinance 1924.
  2. Whether an order for payment by instalments following an application for arrest and imprisonment constitutes a step in execution from which the limitation period runs.

Orders

  • Application for arrest and imprisonment of judgment-debtor allowed as within the limitation period.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Execution — Limitation Period — Application of Section 35(1) Civil Procedure Ordinance 1924
Where an application for execution of a decree has been made, the period of limitation is 12 years from the date of the last step in execution under section 35(1) of the Civil Procedure Ordinance 1924, not 3 years under Article 179 of the Indian Limitation Act 1877.
Statutory Interpretation — Limitation — Relationship Between Civil Procedure Ordinance and Indian Limitation Act
Article 179 of the Indian Limitation Act 1877 expressly excludes from its 3-year limitation period cases provided for by section 230 of the Indian Civil Procedure Code or its equivalent, section 35(1) of the Civil Procedure Ordinance 1924, which prescribes a 12-year period.
Civil Procedure — Execution — Step in Execution — Order for Payment by Instalments
An order for payment by instalments made following an application for arrest and imprisonment of a judgment-debtor constitutes a step in execution from which the limitation period for further execution proceedings runs.
Civil Procedure — Execution — Limitation — Application Need Not Be Granted
Under section 35(1) of the Civil Procedure Ordinance 1924, an application for execution counts as a step in execution from which time runs even if the application is not granted, unlike under section 230 of the Indian Civil Procedure Code which required the application to be both made and granted.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Civil Procedure Ordinance 1924 s.35(1)
  • Indian Limitation Act 1877 Sch.II Art.179
  • Indian Civil Procedure Code s.230

Cases cited (3)

  • De Souza and Co. v Thika Cash Stores (14 K.L.R. 56)
  • Kanji Dharamsi and another v Kanji Dharamsi & Co. (11 K.L.R. 46)
  • Coverdale & Stanley v Saleh Mohammed (13 K.L.R. 43)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Noormohamed v Khamisa (C.C. No. 197-1930) [1937] EACA 201 (1 January 1937)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.