Amarasinghe vs Dharmadasa – CA 973/98-2013

In the case between M.B. Dharmadasa (Plaintiff-Respondent) and P.L. Amarasinghe (Defendant-Appellant), the court addressed whether a claim for recovery of money for work and labour done was prescribed under the applicable limitation periods of the Prescription Ordinance. The determination established that Section 8, prescribing a one-year limitation for actions based on work and labour done, applied rather than Section 7’s three-year period for unwritten contracts. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents, including Amarasinghe v. De Alwis and Ceylon Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dimo Co. Ltd., confirming the predominance of Section 8 for such claims. It was emphasized that adherence to the specific limitation period is mandatory, impacting the timeliness and maintainability of contract-related