Isote v. Isota (PC) Civ. App. 119-D-69; 3/11/70; Biron J.

Isote v. Isota (PC) Civ. App. 119-D-69; 3/11/70; Biron J.

The disputants were brothers. The appellant had succeeded to his father’s estate in 1956. The brothers separated in 1962 when the respondent married. The appellant filed a suit in October 1968 claiming from respondent four head of cattle and Shs. 100/- being brideprice he paid for the respondent after the death of their father. The respondent alleged that the brideprice had been paid by his father before his death. The Primary Court found for the appellant but the District Court reversed on the ground that all claims between the brothers ought to have been settled when they formally separated in 1967.

            Held: (1) “The Schedule to the Magistrates’ Court Act (Limitation of Proceedings Under Customary Law) Rules 1964 lays down the period of limitation for various claims. None of the specific items set out in the schedule would, to my mind, cover this particular claim. Therefore, in my view, this instant claim, if in fact, such a claim does lie under customary law, would come within the ambit of the general provision for limitation se out in Rule 5, which reads:

            “Where any proceeding is brought for the enforcement of a claim under

Customary law for which no period of limitation is prescribed by these Rules, the court may reject the claim if it is on the opinion that there has been unwarrantable delay in bringing the proceedings and that the just determination of the claim may have been prejudiced by that delay.”

(2)       “Apart from the fact, as very rightly remarked by the district magistrate, if the appellant had any claim, such claim should have been brought and settled when the parties separated in 1962, I also agree with the learned district magistrate that the claim is now time-barred.” (3) Appeal dismissed.