Wakilii

El Jehazmi v Mohamed (C.A. 11-1928.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1928] EACA 23 · 1928 Matter Remitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from High Court of Zanzibar decision on amount due under mortgage
Decision
Matter remitted to High Court of Zanzibar for re-trial

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 it must refuse to read or permit use of any document not endorsed in the manner required by Civil Procedure Decree 1917 Order 13 Rule 4(2). Following binding Privy Council authority, the Court could not consider an account document that lacked the required judicial endorsement. As the trial judge had relied substantially on this document in reaching his decision, the Court could not determine what view he would have taken without it. The case was remitted for re-trial.

Outcome

Matter remitted to High Court of Zanzibar for re-trial

Facts

The appellant brought proceedings in the High Court of Zanzibar concerning the amount due under a mortgage. At trial, the defendant put in evidence an account purporting to be derived from his business books. The Chief Justice considered evidence from both parties and found for the defendant. On appeal, the appellant raised a preliminary objection that the account document had not been endorsed as an exhibit by the trial Judge as required by Civil Procedure Decree 1917 Order 13 Rule 4(2). The required endorsement must include the suit number and title, the name of the person producing the document, the date of production, a statement of admission, and the Judge's signature or initials. The document in question lacked this endorsement.

Issues

  1. Whether the Court of Appeal could consider a document that had not been endorsed as an exhibit by the trial Judge as required by Civil Procedure Decree 1917 Order 13 Rule 4(2).
  2. Whether the appeal could be decided without the improperly admitted account document.

Orders

  • Case remitted for re-trial.
  • All costs up to date to be costs in the case.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Documentary Evidence — Endorsement Requirements for Exhibits
Where a document admitted in evidence is an entry in a book, account or record, and a copy has been substituted for the original, the Civil Procedure Decree 1917 Order 13 Rule 4(2) requires that particulars including suit number and title, name of person producing the document, date of production, and statement of admission must be endorsed on the copy and signed or initialled by the Judge.
Evidence — Admissibility — Consequences of Non-Compliance with Procedural Requirements
An appellate court must refuse to read or permit to be used any document not endorsed in the manner required by the applicable civil procedure rules, following the binding authority of the Privy Council in Sadik Khan v Hashim Khan.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Remittal for Re-trial
Where a trial judge's decision was substantially based on consideration of a document that the appellate court cannot consider due to procedural non-compliance, and the appellate court cannot determine what view the trial judge would have taken without that document, the proper course is to remit the case for re-trial rather than decide on the remaining evidence.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Civil Procedure Decree 1917 Order 13 Rule 4(2)
  • Civil Procedure Decree 1917 Order 41 Rule 24

Cases cited (1)

  • Sadik Khan v Hashim Khan (1916) 48 AIR 27

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

El Jehazmi v Mohamed (C.A. 11-1928.) [1928] EACA 23 (1 January 1928)
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.