Wakilii

Adam v The Tanga-Mombasa Transport Company (Civil Suit No. 291 of 1953)

East African Court of Appeal · [1955] EACA 4 · 1955 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for breach of contract for sale of goods
Decision
Suit dismissed on the ground that the contract was unenforceable by action under section 6 of the Sale of Goods Ordinance

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

Held that although the defendant's inspection and rejection of the vehicle indicated acceptance within section 6(3) of the Sale of Goods Ordinance, there was no actual receipt by the defendant as required by section 6(1). The carrier was the plaintiff's agent, not the defendant's, because the vehicle was consigned to a bank rather than to the defendant, meaning the plaintiff never parted with possession. Without actual receipt and without a written memorandum, the contract was unenforceable by action. Suit dismissed.

Outcome

Suit dismissed on the ground that the contract was unenforceable by action under section 6 of the Sale of Goods Ordinance

Facts

The plaintiff firm in Nairobi agreed to sell a motor vehicle to the defendant firm in Tanga for Sh. 7,500 to Sh. 8,000. The plaintiff purchased the vehicle and railed it to Tanga, consigning it to the Standard Bank of South Africa with a sight draft for Sh. 7,500 drawn on the defendant. The bank was instructed to deliver the vehicle upon payment of the draft. The defendant refused to honour the draft and rejected the vehicle, claiming the agreed price was Sh. 4,500, not Sh. 7,500. The plaintiff railed the vehicle back to Nairobi and resold it for Sh. 6,500. The plaintiff paid carriage and demurrage charges totalling Sh. 1,020.60 and sued for these charges plus the difference in price. The court found the contract and breach proved but held the contract unenforceable for lack of a written memorandum and absence of actual receipt by the defendant.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant's inspection and rejection of the vehicle at Tanga constituted acceptance of goods within the meaning of section 6(3) of the Sale of Goods Ordinance.
  2. Whether the defendant actually received the vehicle so as to bring the contract within the exception to the writing requirement in section 6(1).
  3. Whether the railway carrier was the agent of the buyer (defendant) or the seller (plaintiff) when goods were consigned to a bank rather than directly to the buyer.

Orders

  • Suit dismissed with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Sale of Goods — Acceptance — Recognition of Pre-existing Contract
There is acceptance of goods within the meaning of section 6(3) of the Sale of Goods Ordinance when the buyer inspects the goods and rejects them on the ground that the price is excessive, as such conduct recognises the existence of a previous contract of sale.
Sale of Goods — Actual Receipt — Requirement for Enforceability
For a contract of sale to fall within the exception to the writing requirement in section 6(1) of the Sale of Goods Ordinance, there must be both acceptance and actual receipt of the goods by the buyer. Acceptance alone is insufficient to render the contract enforceable.
Sale of Goods — Carrier as Agent — Consignment to Third Party
A carrier is prima facie the buyer's agent to receive goods, but only when the carrier holds the goods for the buyer. Where goods are consigned by the seller to a bank rather than to the buyer, the seller does not part with possession and the carrier is the agent of the seller, not the buyer.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Sale of Goods Ordinance Cap. 290 s.6
  • Sale of Goods Ordinance Cap. 290 s.6(1)
  • Sale of Goods Ordinance Cap. 290 s.6(2)
  • Sale of Goods Ordinance Cap. 290 s.6(3)
  • Sale of Goods Act 1893 s.4

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Adam v The Tanga-Mombasa Transport Company (Civil Suit No. 291 of 1953) [1955] EACA 4 (1 January 1955)
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.