The Receipt, the Partial Payment, and the Limitation Plea
On 12 February 2019, L. lent B. 600,000 som for a car repair. B. signed a one-page receipt stating: 'I received 600,000 som from L. and will repay by 31 December 2020.' The receipt says nothing about interest. B. paid 100,000 som on 15 March 2021; the bank transfer reference read 'partial repayment of debt under receipt.' L. sent a written demand on 10 January 2024. On 20 June 2024, L. sued for the remaining 500,000 som plus 20% annual interest from 1 January 2021, claiming the parties had orally agreed on interest. B. pleads that the three-year limitation period expired on 31 December 2023 and that the oral interest term is unenforceable. L. argues that the 2021 partial payment restarted the clock and that B.'s silence after the demand confirms the debt.
1. When did the limitation period begin, and what effect did the 15 March 2021 payment have?
Read the worked answer
Start of the period. The general limitation period is three years. The obligation had a fixed due date of 31 December 2020, so B. was in default from 1 January 2021. The period began on 1 January 2021 and would ordinarily expire at the end of 31 December 2023.
Effect of the partial payment. The 100,000 som payment was made on 15 March 2021, before the period expired. The transfer reference expressly linked it to the debt. That is an acknowledgment of the obligation and interrupts the limitation period. A new three-year period runs from 15 March 2021 and expires on 15 March 2024.
The lawsuit. L. filed on 20 June 2024, after the new period expired. B.'s silence after the January 2024 demand is not an acknowledgment. Mere failure to deny a demand does not restart limitation. Therefore, if B. properly pleads limitation, the claim for the remaining principal is time-barred. The court cannot revive the debt because it may still be morally owed. The partial payment acknowledged the principal, not a separate 20% interest obligation.
2. Is the claim for 20% annual interest sustainable?
Read the worked answer
Burden of proof. L. must prove the oral agreement for 20% interest. The written receipt is the primary evidence and says nothing about interest. An alleged oral term that contradicts or supplements a written document requires strong, credible corroboration. L. has produced none beyond his own assertion.
Legal basis. Interest for the use of money requires a contractual or statutory basis. If the loan is between individuals and is not entrepreneurial, the court should not infer a commercial rate from silence. At most, statutory interest may apply if the law provides for default interest, but the court must identify the legal basis and the rate.
Result. The 20% claim should be dismissed. Even if the interest term were valid, the limitation analysis would apply separately to each interest instalment; the principal claim is already barred. The January 2024 demand cannot create a new interest obligation retroactively.
3. How should the court apply the limitation plea and allocate the burden between the parties?
Read the worked answer
Application. Limitation is applied only on the defendant's application; the court should not raise it on its own motion. B. has pleaded it, so the court must decide the plea.
Burden. B. bears the burden of proving that the claim became due on 31 December 2020 and that no later acknowledgment occurred within the new period. L. bears the burden of proving the loan and any interruption. The receipt and the bank transfer prove the loan and the partial payment; the transfer also proves acknowledgment. Once B. shows that the new period expired on 15 March 2024, L. must prove a later acknowledgment. Silence is not enough.
Judgment. The court should dismiss the claim for 500,000 som and for 20% interest as time-barred. It may note that the underlying debt existed but that the legal remedy is barred. Costs should follow the judgment. If B. had not pleaded limitation, the court would have had to decide the oral interest issue and could have awarded principal only.