Wakilii

Abdulla v Janmohamed's Limited

East African Court of Appeal · [1951] EACA 21 · 1951 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Supreme Court of Kenya reversing Magistrate's judgment for plaintiff in breach of contract action
Decision
Judgment of the Magistrate restored; respondent liable for damages being the difference between the two auction sale prices

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that the auction sale was a sale by sample where the auctioneer held up a plate stating it was a sample and the handbill invited inspection of samples. The seller breached the implied condition under section 17(2)(a) of the Sale of Goods Ordinance that the bulk must correspond with the sample in quality. The conditions of sale did not protect a seller who knew many plates were broken but gave no notice to bidders, especially where goods were in bond and could not be inspected. The appeal was allowed and the Magistrate's judgment restored.

Outcome

Judgment of the Magistrate restored; respondent liable for damages being the difference between the two auction sale prices

Facts

The appellant purchased 264 dozen earthenware plates at auction for Sh. 11 per dozen. The plates were in bond and could not be inspected before sale. The auctioneer held up one plate and stated it was a sample. The handbill stated samples could be inspected and that goods were sold for account and risk of parties concerned. After the sale, the appellant discovered that 10 or 11 of the 22 cases were badly damaged with broken plates. The respondent seller knew many plates were broken but gave no notice of this fact in the handbill or at the auction. The appellant resold the goods by auction after notice, fetching only Sh. 5 per dozen, and sued for the difference. The Magistrate found for the plaintiff, holding it was a sale by sample. The Supreme Court reversed, holding it was not a sale by sample.

Issues

  1. Whether the auction sale of earthenware plates was a sale by sample within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Ordinance.
  2. Whether the seller breached the implied condition that the bulk must correspond with the sample in quality.
  3. Whether the conditions of sale and handbill wording protected the seller from liability for selling goods known to be substantially damaged without disclosure.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment of the learned trial Magistrate restored.
  • Costs awarded to the appellant in the Court of Appeal.
  • Costs awarded to the appellant in the Appellate Court below.
  • Costs awarded to the appellant in the Court of the Resident Magistrate.

Rules and key headnotes

Sale of Goods — Sale by Sample — What Constitutes
A sale is a sale by sample where the auctioneer holds up an item and states it is a sample, and where the sale handbill invites intending bidders to inspect samples at the auction room, even if the auctioneer's primary purpose is to show the type of goods being offered.
Sale of Goods — Implied Conditions — Correspondence with Sample
In a sale by sample, there is an implied condition under section 17(2)(a) of the Sale of Goods Ordinance that the bulk shall correspond with the sample in quality, and a breach occurs where nearly half the goods are broken or unmerchantable when the sample displayed was a whole, merchantable item.
Sale of Goods — Conditions of Sale — Exclusion Clauses — Seller's Knowledge
Standard auction conditions of sale stating that goods are sold with all faults and that the auctioneer is not liable for shortage or breakage do not protect a seller who knows that a large proportion of the goods are damaged but gives no notice or warning of this fact to intending bidders, particularly where the goods are in bond and cannot be inspected.
Sale of Goods — Auction Sales — Duty of Disclosure
Where a seller knows that goods offered at auction are substantially damaged or broken, fairness and good practice require disclosure of this fact in the sale handbill or by the auctioneer at the time of sale, and failure to do so when relying on exclusion clauses comes very near to sharp practice which the courts will not encourage.
Damages — Measure of Damages — Resale by Auction
Where a buyer discovers that goods purchased at auction are substantially damaged in breach of an implied condition, it is a proper measure of damage to take the difference between the price paid at the first auction and the proceeds obtained at a subsequent resale by auction after notice to the seller.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Sale of Goods Ordinance 1950 s.17(2)
  • Sale of Goods Ordinance 1950 s.17(2)(a)
  • Sale of Goods Ordinance 1950 s.17(2)(c)

Cases cited (1)

  • Peters & Co v Planner (1895) 11 TLR 168

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Abdulla v Janmohamed's Limited [1951] EACA 21 (1 January 1951)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.