Wakilii

Ebrahim v Prodger (Civil Case No. 53 of 1952 (Mombasa))

East African Court of Appeal · [1952] EACA 282 · 1952 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of commission and advertising charges arising from sale of land
Decision
Judgment entered for plaintiff for commission of Sh. 3,250 with costs

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 held that when an agent induced the purchaser to make a payment to the seller's advocate after the contract of sale was completed, the payment was not made 'in effecting the sale' and did not constitute corrupt or fraudulent conduct. The agent remained entitled to commission. The court distinguished cases involving secret benefits received by agents before or during contract formation from payments made after completion.

Outcome

Judgment entered for plaintiff for commission of Sh. 3,250 with costs

Facts

The defendant employed an advocate, Mr. Cleasby, to sell three plots of land for £5,000. Cleasby instructed the plaintiff estate agent to find a purchaser. The plaintiff produced a purchaser, Bin Miran, who agreed to the price. On 22nd July 1949, Miran paid a deposit of Sh. 25,000 to Cleasby and the contract was regarded as completed. After Miran left the room, the plaintiff told Cleasby that Miran wished to give him a present for his work. The plaintiff then called Miran back, who handed 100 twenty-shilling notes (Sh. 2,000) to Cleasby. This payment was made without the defendant's knowledge. Cleasby immediately disclosed this to the defendant, who advised it might allow rescission. The defendant ultimately proceeded with the sale but refused to pay the plaintiff's commission of Sh. 3,250 and advertising charges, alleging the payment constituted corrupt conduct disentitling the plaintiff to commission.

Issues

  1. Whether an agent who, after completion of a contract of sale, induced the purchaser to make a payment to the principal's advocate was acting corruptly or fraudulently in effecting the sale.
  2. Whether such conduct disentitled the agent to commission on the sale.
  3. Whether the agent was entitled to recover advertising charges beyond an amount already paid.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff for Sh. 3,250.
  • Plaintiff awarded costs except on the issue of advertising charges.
  • Costs on the issue of advertising charges to be borne by the plaintiff.
  • Claim for additional advertising charges beyond Sh. 500 already paid dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Agency — Agent's Entitlement to Commission — Secret Payments
An agent is not disentitled to commission where a payment to a third party is made after the contract of sale is completed, as such payment is not made 'in effecting the sale'.
Contract Law — Agency — Corrupt or Fraudulent Conduct — Timing
For conduct to be corrupt or fraudulent in effecting a sale, it must occur before or during the formation of the contract. An inducement to make a payment after the contract is completed does not constitute corruption in effecting the sale.
Contract Law — Agency — Distinction Between Main Duty and Incidental Duties
Where an agent's failure to disclose relates to matters occurring after completion of the agent's main contractual duty, such failure does not disentitle the agent to commission unless there is fraud or dishonesty or the undisclosed matter is connected with the contract the agent was employed to make.

Cases cited (3)

  • Industries v Lewis (1949) 2 All ER 573
  • Price v Metropolitan Investment Co (1906) 23 TLR 630
  • Hippisley v Knee Bros [1905] 1 KB 1

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ebrahim v Prodger (Civil Case No. 53 of 1952 (Mombasa)) [1952] EACA 282 (1 January 1952)
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.