Continuing oppression and mismanagement can defeat a limitation objection when the dispute reflects an ongoing wrong

Where allegations of oppression and mismanagement are continuing in nature, limitation does not justify rejecting the petition at the threshold because the dispute is treated as a continuing wrong rather than a completed cause of action. The Tribunal also distinguished the right to sue from amendment of pleadings, stating that amendment should be considered liberally if it does not introduce a fresh cause of action or alter the nature of the proceedings. On that basis, the limitation objection was treated as fact-sensitive and not a ground for summary rejection, and the challenge to maintainability was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application challenging maintainability of the main petition on the ground of limitation could be sustained where the allegations were of continuing oppression and mismanagement, and whether amendment of the pleadings could be refused on limitation grounds.

Analysis: The pleadings and reliefs in the main petition were treated as continuing in nature, and the dispute was held to concern a continuing wrong rather than a completed cause of action. In that setting, the Tribunal held that the general principles of limitation did not operate to defeat the petition at the threshold. The decision also distinguished between the right to sue and the right to amend pleadings, and noted that an amendment is to be tested on whether it introduces a fresh cause of action or alters the nature of the case, with a liberal approach preferred where the amendment assists determination of the real controversy. The objection based on limitation was therefore held to be fact-sensitive and not a ground for summary rejection in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The objection of limitation and maintainability was rejected, and the application challenging the main petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the oppression or mismanagement complained of is continuing in nature, the limitation defence does not justify throwing out the petition at the preliminary stage, and applications for amendment should be assessed liberally so long as they do not introduce a new cause of action or change the nature of the proceedings.

---