The Doctrine of Continuous Breach of Contract in Tanzania
Abstract
This article critically examines the doctrine of Continuous Breach of Contract in Tanzanian law, a crucial exception to the six-year limitation period under the Part I of the Schedule of the Law of Limitation Act, Cap. 89 R.E. 2023. It focuses on the Court of Appeal of Tanzania’s (CAT) definitive clarification of the doctrine in the landmark decision of Patel Trading Co. (1961) Limited vs. Kigoma District Council & Another (Civil Appeal No. 588 of 2023) [2025] TZCA 1108. The analysis posits that the CAT strictly limits the doctrine’s application to breaches involving a genuine repetition of periodic contractual obligations, thereby preventing its misuse as a strategy to revive stale claims stemming from a single, instantaneous failure. The findings underscore the necessity of a contract requiring successive, ongoing performance for a cause of action to be deemed continuous.
Introduction: Context and Problem Statement
The Law of Limitation Act Cap. 89 R.E. 2023 establishes clear time limits for commencing legal action, including a six-year period for contractual suits. This statutory bar aims to ensure finality in disputes and prevent the injustice of defending against claims based on long-forgotten evidence. However, the concept of a “continuous breach” presents a significant challenge to this finality, as litigants frequently invoke it to argue that a cause of action is perpetually alive. The problem addressed by the CAT is the lack of a clear, uniform standard distinguishing a single, instantaneous breach with ongoing consequences from a truly continuous, recurring breach.
The Court of Appeal, in Patel Trading Co. (1961) Ltd., definitively held that the doctrine of Continuous Breach of Contract in Tanzania applies exclusively to the repeated failure to perform a periodic or successive contractual duty, rejecting its application to simple debt defaults or the ongoing consequences of an initial, complete failure.
Roadmap
This article will first review the foundational legal test for a continuous cause of action. It will then critically analyze the Patel Trading judgment, highlighting the facts and the CAT’s reasoning for rejecting the continuous breach argument. Subsequently, it will contrast this with established examples of genuine continuous breaches. Finally, the article will conclude by summarizing the practical implications of the judgment for contract litigation in Tanzania.
Defining the Legal Threshold for Continuous Breach
The CAT’s analysis roots the concept of a continuing cause of action in the idea of repetition. The foundational test requires the cause of action to arise from the “repetition of acts or omissions of the same kind as that for which the action was brought.” This means a breach is continuous only if the contract mandates a recurring, periodic duty (e.g., monthly rent, weekly service provision) and the defendant fails to perform that duty repeatedly over time. The limitation period then runs afresh from each individual instance of non-performance.
A Single, Instantaneous Breach
Patel Trading Co. (1961) Ltd. v. Kigoma District Council serves as the definitive precedent for when the doctrine does not apply.
Genuine Continuous Breach: The Periodic Obligation
Conversely, the CAT provided clear illustrations of what constitutes a genuine continuous breach:
Summary of Findings
The Patel Trading judgment has cemented a strict interpretation of the Continuous Breach doctrine in Tanzania. The central takeaway is that the doctrine’s applicability hinges entirely on the nature of the contractual obligation. It requires a subsisting contract mandating the repetition of periodic duties where the cause of action effectively repeats with every instance of non-performance. It emphatically does not cover the ongoing effects of a singular, completed breach, such as the persistent non-payment of a single, long-past debt.