Wakilii

Karimjee Jivanjee and Co. v Dhanjee (C.C. 47-1932 (Mombasa).)

East African Court of Appeal · [1933] EACA 8 · 1933 Judgment for Defendant AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit on promissory notes
Decision
Action dismissed with costs to the defendant

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 the insertion of the words 'Payment guaranteed by me' after the defendant had endorsed promissory notes, without his knowledge or consent, constituted a material alteration that discharged him from all liability. The alteration changed the legal position of the endorser. Further, an endorser is not liable to the original payee but only to subsequent holders in due course, and no such transfer had occurred.

Outcome

Action dismissed with costs to the defendant

Facts

The plaintiffs sued the defendant for Shs 2,114/59, being the amount of seven promissory notes drawn by the plaintiffs, accepted by the firm of Karachiwalla and Co. (now bankrupt), and endorsed by the defendant. The plaintiffs' manager testified that long after the defendant had endorsed the notes, he inserted or caused to be inserted the words 'Payments guaranteed by me' before the defendant's signature. The defendant submitted there was no case to answer on the basis that this constituted a material alteration. The plaintiffs contended the defendant had agreed to guarantee and had endorsed for that purpose.

Issues

  1. Whether the subsequent insertion of the words 'Payment guaranteed by me' above the defendant's endorsement on promissory notes constituted a material alteration discharging the endorser from liability.
  2. Whether the defendant was liable to the plaintiffs as an endorser when the notes had not been transferred to holders in due course.

Orders

  • Action dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Bills of Exchange — Material Alteration — Effect on Endorser's Liability
The subsequent insertion of words altering the nature of an endorsement on a promissory note, without the knowledge or consent of the endorser, constitutes a material alteration that discharges the endorser from all liability under the instrument, regardless of the original intention of the parties at the time of endorsement.
Bills of Exchange — Endorser's Liability — Holder in Due Course
An endorser of a promissory note is not liable to the original payee or parties to the note, but only to subsequent holders in due course who take the instrument after the endorsement.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (5)

  • Sufell v Bank of England (1882) 9 QBD 555
  • K E Jones Ltd v Waring and Gillow Ltd [1926] AC 670
  • Steele v Mackinlay (1880) 5 AC 754
  • Gerald McDonald and Co v Nash and Co [1924] AC 625
  • M. T. Shun' and Co., Ltd. v. Holla and Another (1913), 2 K.B.D. 15

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Karimjee Jivanjee and Co. v Dhanjee (C.C. 47-1932 (Mombasa).) [1933] EACA 8 (1 January 1933)
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.