Suspension of the statute of limitations for civil claims: A comparative study of arab legislations

Abstract

This study investigates the concept of suspension of statutory time limits for civil claims, where suspension is defined as a legitimate excuse that pauses the prescription period due to physical, moral, or legal impediments preventing a claimant from enforcing their rights. The research examines how the Ottoman Mecelle (still applicable in Palestine), and the Civil Codes of Jordan and Egypt, address this issue within their legal frameworks, which integrate Civil Law principles with classical Islamic jurisprudence. The findings reveal that while Arab legal systems generally adopt a broad view of suspension, recognizing a wide range of impediments, the French Civil Code applies a more restrictive approach. Additionally, the study highlights the role of judicial discretion in determining and applying suspension, noting variations across jurisdictions. It critically evaluates specific legal provisions, such as those related to travel and prolonged absence in the Mecelle, and suggests updates to these provisions to better reflect modern practices. The study recommends standardizing definitions of impediments, updating outdated legal provisions, and refining judicial discretion to ensure that suspensions are applied fairly, focusing on whether the impediment materially affected the claimant's ability to assert their rights. These insights aim to enhance the clarity and fairness of applying statutory time limits across different legal systems.