BREACH OF CONTRACT - THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN KSEB AND CONSUMERS
In a continuing breach of contract a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every movement of the time during which the breach as the case may be. (Limitation Act No 36 of 1963).
The breach of contract commences when the promise sustain damages. It is the very essence of a continuing wrong that it is an act which creates continuing source of injury and renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for the continuance of the said injury.
However, a wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by itself continues, then the act constitutes a continuing wrong. In this situation it is necessary to draw a distinctions between injury caused by the wrongful act and what may described as the effect of the said injury. Where the wrongful act complained of amounts in ouster the resulting injury to the right at the date of ouster.
There has not been a wrongful act from which injuries consequences have ensured to the plaintiff but to recover any amount due to the Government affairs in which their predecessors in interest, though in a position to terminate the injury at their pleasure, have intentionally caused it to continue. Their conduct thus amounted to a continuing wrong and a fresh period of limitation began to run at every movement of time during which the wrong continued is cause of action arose "de die in diem" to the plaintiff and his complaint.
In a continuing breach of contract a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every movement of the time during which the breach as the case may be. (Limitation Act No 36 of 1963).
The breach of contract commences when the promise sustain damages. It is the very essence of a continuing wrong that it is an act which creates continuing source of injury and renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for the continuance of the said injury.
However, a wrongful act is of such a character that the injury caused by itself continues, then the act constitutes a continuing wrong. In this situation it is necessary to draw a distinctions between injury caused by the wrongful act and what may described as the effect of the said injury. Where the wrongful act complained of amounts in ouster the resulting injury to the right at the date of ouster.
There has not been a wrongful act from which injuries consequences have ensured to the plaintiff but to recover any amount due to the Government affairs in which their predecessors in interest, though in a position to terminate the injury at their pleasure, have intentionally caused it to continue. Their conduct thus amounted to a continuing wrong and a fresh period of limitation began to run at every movement of time during which the wrong continued is cause of action arose "de die in diem" to the plaintiff and his complaint.
No comments:
Post a Comment