Verify now as a student, judge or newly called lawyer for access to discounted plans.

BRAIMAH v. AZASIME and others

1970

COURT OF APPEAL

CORAM

Apalloo
Lassey
Siriboe JJ. A

Areas of Law

Civil Procedure

Administrative Law

AI Generated Summary

This judgment from a Court of Appeal panel consisting of Apalloo, Lassey, and Siriboe JJ.A confronts the tension between equitable sympathies and strict statutory limits. The court describes claimants as "subjects" who suffered wrong from "arbitrary action on the part of the executive," and candidly remarks that the opposing public officer appears "entirely without merit." Despite this, the bench concludes that the action is time-barred. Invoking Lord Greene M.R.’s statement in Hilton v Sutton Steam Laundry [1945] 2 All E.R 425 at p. 429, the court underscores that limitation statutes are indifferent to the merits. Once the limitation period has expired, the defendant may insist on strict rights. With evident regret, the court denies a remedy and finds for the public officer.

JUDGMENT

“I cannot help expressing my regret at the conclusion to which I am compelled to come because we are denying a remedy to subjects who have suffered wrong by what seems an arbitrary action on the part of the executive and finding for a public officer who is entirely without merit. But as Lord Greene M.R. observed in Hilton v Sutton Steam Laundry [1945] 2 All E.R 425 at p. 429, ‘The Statutory limitation is not concerned with merits. Once the axe falls, it falls and a defendant who is fortunate enough to have acquired the benefit of the Statutory limitation, is entitled to insist upon his strict rights’.”