Kangaho Edward v Hiraa Traders Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2010)
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 where a sale agreement names a company as seller, the signature of a director without explicit indication of representative capacity does not negate the company's status as contracting party. A director acts as the directing mind and will of the corporation. Payment to the company by cheque and absence of evidence showing misrepresentation establishes the company's privity to the contract. The appellant was estopped from denying the company's capacity as seller.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent
Facts
The respondent company filed a suit against the appellant for breach of a motor vehicle sale contract dated 11 May 2005. The sale agreement named Hiraa Traders Ltd as seller and Kangaho Edward as purchaser, for a Mitsubishi RVR at 14,000,000 UGX. The appellant paid 4,000,000 UGX, leaving a balance of 10,000,000 UGX. Mazhar Qayyum, a director of the respondent company, signed the agreement without stating he signed on behalf of the company. The appellant issued cheques payable to Hiraa Traders Ltd which bounced. The appellant defended by contending he purchased the vehicle from Mazhar Qayyum personally, not from the company, and that the company lacked standing to sue. The Chief Magistrate found for the company and awarded damages. The appellant appealed.
Issues
- Whether there was a contract between the appellant and the respondent company.
- Whether the sale agreement was executed by Mazhar Qayyum in his personal capacity or on behalf of Hiraa Traders Ltd.
- Whether the respondent had locus standi to sue the appellant for breach of contract.
- Whether the trial magistrate erred in awarding damages to the respondent.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondent.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
Cases cited (6)
- Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22
- Dr. Vincent Karuhanga (trading as Friends Polyclinic) v NIC & URA (HCCS No. 617 of 2002)
- Nsagiranabo Erasmus t/a Nsagira Auctioneers & Court Bailiffs v M/S Associated Properties and 2 others (H/C Misc. App No. 953 of 2007)
- Credit Finance Corp Ltd v Ali Mwakasanga [1957] EA 79
- Lennard's Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd [1915] AC 705
- Coffee Marketing Board v Kigezi Growers Co-operative Union (HCCS No. 437 of 1994)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.