Limitation: the quiet killer of good claims

Civil Litigation · 18 February 2026 · 7 min read

Limitation defeats more meritorious claims than any defence pleaded on the merits. It operates without regard to fairness, and courts have limited power to relieve against it.

The first question is never how long the period is, but when it began. For a recovery on an account, from the date the amount became due; for specific performance, from the date fixed for performance or, where none is fixed, from when the plaintiff had notice of refusal; for possession on the strength of title, from the date of dispossession. Fixing the starting point wrongly is the commonest error, and it is usually fixed wrongly in the plaintiff’s favour.

Certain acts restart the clock. A written acknowledgement of liability, signed before the period expires, gives a fresh period from its date. A part payment, if it appears in the handwriting of the person making it or is otherwise proved as the statute requires, does the same. Both are worth hunting for in the correspondence before concluding that a claim is barred.

Where the delay is in an appeal or an application rather than a suit, condonation may be sought — but sufficient cause must be shown by affidavit with particulars, not asserted. Ill health, wrong advice and departmental delay are all capable of amounting to sufficient cause and all fail when pleaded vaguely.

The practical discipline is simple: compute limitation at the first consultation, in writing, on the file. It takes ten minutes and it decides whether anything else in the file matters.