Posts

Case Summary: ABSA Bank Zambia Plc v T and L Limited and Ors (Appeal No. 131/2024) [2024] ZMCA 296 (19 November 2024)

Court of Appeal judgement on Limitation of Actions and Statute Barred Claims
Views


 



Judgment Delivered on 19th November 2024

 

Court: In the Court of Appeal of Zambia Holden at Lusaka ( Civil Jurisdiction) 


Panel: J. Chashi, D.L.Y Sichinga, SC & N.A Sharpe-Phiri, JJA

 

Judgment of the Court by: D.L.Y Sichinga, JA


 

Subject Matter: Limitation of Actions in Zambia – Statute Barred Claims in Zambia



Facts:

This case involves an appeal by ABSA Bank Zambia Plc against a ruling by the High Court, which dismissed the bank's application to strike out a claim by T and L Limited on the grounds that it was statute-barred. The claim arose from events dating back to 2005, when T and L Limited alleged that ABSA Bank forcibly evicted them from their mortgaged property without proper legal procedures. The plaintiff claimed damages for loss of property and business due to alleged fraudulent actions by the bank. The bank contended that the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act, asserting that the plaintiff should have initiated the action within twelve years of the alleged dispossession. The High Court found that the plaintiff became aware of the alleged fraud in 2019, thus ruling that the claim was not statute-barred.


Issues:

 

    Whether the claim by T and L Limited was statute-barred under the Limitation Act, 1939, when the cause of action arose.

    Whether the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence in pursuing the claim.

    Whether the High Court erred in its findings regarding the discovery of fraud.


Holding:

The Court of Appeal held that T and L Limited's claim was indeed statute-barred. The Court found that the cause of action arose in 2005 when the plaintiff was dispossessed of the property and that the plaintiff had sufficient information to pursue the claim by 2008, making the 2023 action time-barred.

The Court emphasised that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in pursuing the claim after the dispossession. The Court noted that the plaintiff's assertion of discovering fraud in 2019 was inconsistent with earlier claims of awareness in 2008, indicating that the plaintiff could have acted sooner.

The Court set aside the High Court's ruling, concluding that the learned trial court Judge erred in determining that the twelve-year limitation period began in 2019. The appeal was allowed, and ABSA Bank was awarded costs, affirming that the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act.



Full Case: Here

DISCLAIMER

The views expressed in this article are solely mine and do not represent any organisation with which I am affiliated.

The views and opinions presented in this article or multimedia content are solely those of the author(s) and may not represent the opinions or stance of Amulufeblog.com.
Bachelor of Laws (UNZA), Intern at Southern African Institute for Policy and Research, Author, Founder of Amulufeblog.com, Web Developer, Graphic Designer, Blogger, Tech Support, Sound and Audiovisua…

Post a Comment