Limitation of Actions-Admission of the obligation-Renewal of right of ac-
tion-Necessity for strict proof

• Court: Creed C.J., Evans R.G.L. and Flaxman J.

Where it is pleaded that a right of action. which would otherwise have
been time-barred has been renewed by a verbal admission of obligation as
provided in section 9 of the Prescription and Limitation Ordinance 1928,'
the burden of proof resting on the claimant must be discharged by satis-
factory evidence, which should be recorded in detail and subjected to the
closest scrutiny by the court.

Prescription and Limitation Ordinance 1928, s. 9.

Appeal

April 19, 1938. Creed C.J.: This is an appeal from the decree
of the Province Judge, "Kassala Province, ordering that the appellant
pay to the respondent the sum of £E.65.065 m/ms.

The third ground of appeal is that the learned judge was in-
correct in his finding that the appellant had on several occasions dur-
ing the five years immediately preceding the institution of the present
suit, verbally admitted to the respondent or his agents his obligation
in respect of the sum claimed. The appellant's advocate urges that
the evidence is totally inadequate to support the finding, that the
second witness for the respondent proves no such admission, but on
the contrary, if his evidence is at all to be relied on, proves that
when the appellant was asked to pay the alleged debt, he denied all
liability, that the evidence of the first witness is of the vaguest char-
acter, and that the statements in evidence of the first witness -and the
respondent do not corroborate each other, one referring to an alleged
admission in 1933 or 1934, the latter to an alleged admission in 1936.

This court has previously stressed the point that the onus of
proof of an alleged admission of obligation within section 9 of the
Prescription and Limitation Ordinance 1928 is on the plaintiff, and
it is an onus which must be discharged by the production of satisfactory
evidence. There is no allegation more easily made by a plaintiff
than that such an admission has been made by a defendant, and in·
no matter is it more essential that the evidence ~should be recorded in
detail and subjected to the closest scrutiny by the court. The precise
terms of the alleged acknowledgment should be in 'evidence, and every
relevant circumstance surrounding the alleged. acknowledgment. In
the view of this court the evidence on this issue has not been recorded
with sufficient care or subjected to sufficient scrutiny.

I The appeal is reported only on the issue arising under section 9 of the
Prescription and Limitation Ordinance 1928.