Special PleaPrescriptionBurden of ProofEvidenceInterruption of Prescription
Tags
AppealPrescriptionCivil Procedure
legislation
Statutes Cited
Prescription Act
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the High Court erred in procedurally disposing of the special plea of prescription without hearing evidence","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The High Court considered documents attached to heads of argument and made factual findings without viva voce evidence"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the appellant's claim had prescribed","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Loan advanced November 2010, summons issued August 2014, email sent June 2012"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the email of 25 June 2012 interrupted the running of prescription","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Content of email dated 25 June 2012"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellant issued summons in August 2014 claiming USD 288,350.00 for a loan advanced in November 2010. The respondent raised a special plea of prescription. The High Court upheld the plea, but the Supreme Court found this was procedurally irregular as evidence should have been heard to determine if prescription was interrupted by an email admission of liability.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases