Wakilii

Karimbux v Dalgety and Company Limited (C.A. 4-1934.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1937] EACA 121 · 1937 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Supreme Court of Kenya against judgment ordering payment for goods sold and delivered
Decision
Judgment of the trial court affirmed; appellant ordered to pay the price of goods sold and delivered

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 a contract for 181 bags of maize meal lying at a specific location (Rongai Mills) constituted a sale of specific goods, not unascertained goods. Where specific goods are sold by description and the goods delivered correspond with that description, the property passes to the buyer when the goods are counted and appropriated to the contract. The meal delivered was of merchantable quality and corresponded with the contractual description of 'maize meal'. The action for the price of goods sold and delivered was properly framed.

Outcome

Judgment of the trial court affirmed; appellant ordered to pay the price of goods sold and delivered

Facts

On 21 June 1933, the respondent (plaintiff) agreed by telephone to sell to the appellant (defendant) approximately 188 bags of maize meal lying at Rongai Mill at Sh. 10 per bag. The actual quantity proved to be 181 bags. The respondent delivered the meal to the railway at Rongai. The appellant refused to pay, contending that the contract was for first-class quality meal milled from good sound European-grown maize, and that inferior quality had been supplied. The appellant also argued that as the contract was for unascertained goods, property had not passed because he had not had opportunity to inspect. The trial judge found for the respondent and ordered payment of Sh. 1,810. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the contract was for the sale of specific goods or unascertained goods.
  2. Whether the maize meal delivered corresponded with the contractual description.
  3. Whether the property in the goods had passed to the buyer.
  4. Whether the proper remedy was an action for the price of goods sold and delivered or an action for damages for refusal to accept.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Sale of Goods — Specific Goods — Definition and Identification
A contract for the sale of a defined quantity of goods in a specific location constitutes a sale of specific goods where the individuality of the goods is known and they are appropriated to the contract, even if the goods might otherwise be described generically.
Sale of Goods — Specific Goods — Perishing of Subject Matter
Where goods are identified by reference to a specific location and quantity, if those goods perish before the contract is made, the contract is void under the rule applicable to specific goods, and the seller cannot be compelled to procure substitute goods from elsewhere.
Sale of Goods — Sale by Description — Correspondence with Description
Even where a contract is for the sale of specific goods, if those goods are sold by description and do not correspond with that description, the seller fails to comply with the contract itself by breach of a condition precedent, not merely a warranty or collateral agreement.
Sale of Goods — Merchantable Quality — Implied Condition
Where goods are sold by description, there is an implied condition under section 16(2) of the Sale of Goods Ordinance 1930 that the goods shall be of merchantable quality.
Sale of Goods — Passing of Property — Specific Goods
In a contract for the sale of specific goods, property is transferred to the buyer under section 20, rule 3, when the goods are counted, the price is ascertained, and this fact is communicated to the buyer, and delivery occurs when the goods are delivered to the carrier.
Sale of Goods — Remedies — Action for Price
Where property in specific goods has passed to the buyer, the seller's proper remedy is an action for the price of goods sold and delivered, not an action for damages for refusal to accept.
Documentary Evidence — Admissibility — Analyst's Report
Where a party serves notice to admit that a document was written and signed as it purports to be, the admission goes only to authenticity, not admissibility of contents. Where the author of a document is not called as a witness, the contents of the document are inadmissible in evidence.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Sale of Goods Ordinance 1930 s.2(1)
  • Sale of Goods Ordinance 1930 s.8
  • Sale of Goods Ordinance 1930 s.16(2)
  • Sale of Goods Ordinance 1930 s.18
  • Sale of Goods Ordinance 1930 s.20 Rule III
  • Sale of Goods Ordinance 1930 s.35
  • Sale of Goods Ordinance 1930 s.49
  • Sale of Goods Ordinance 1930 s.50

Cases cited (7)

  • In re Wait [1927] 1 Ch 606
  • Laurie v Dudin [1926] 1 KB 223
  • Varley v Whipp [1900] 1 QB 513
  • Holroyd v Marshall (1862) 33 LJ Ch 193
  • Moiling v. Dean and Sons, 18 T.L.R., p. 217
  • Brigg v. Villa Nova, 40 T.L.R., 154
  • Boks v. Rayner, 37 T.L.R., p. 800

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Karimbux v Dalgety and Company Limited (C.A. 4-1934.) [1937] EACA 121 (1 January 1937)
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.