Wakilii

Kenya Farmers Association Ltd v Abubakar (C.C. 12-1031 (Eldoret).)

East African Court of Appeal · [1931] EACA 9 · 1931 Judgment for Plaintiff (Partial) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for goods sold and delivered
Decision
Plaintiff succeeded in part - judgment entered for invoices signed by defendant personally; claim for goods ordered by driver dismissed

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 there is no custom in the transport business for a lorry driver to order goods on behalf of his employer. To make a principal liable for orders given by a purported agent, actual or ostensible authority or ratification must be proved. The mere relationship of employer and driver does not involve authority to pledge the employer's credit for petrol. The plaintiff succeeded only on invoices personally signed by the defendant.

Outcome

Plaintiff succeeded in part - judgment entered for invoices signed by defendant personally; claim for goods ordered by driver dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff sued the defendant butcher for goods sold and delivered, comprising petrol and oil products. The account included six invoices: four bearing signatures identified as Mohamed Abubakar (the defendant's name), which the defendant disputed but the court held him liable for, totalling Sh. 460/40. The bulk of the claim related to products supplied to and signed for by Yassin Farah, who was the defendant's lorry driver. The defendant had two lorries which he did not drive himself. Evidence showed Yassin Farah frequently purchased goods from motor accessory shops and signed invoices, which were sometimes charged to the defendant's account without dispute. However, there was no evidence the products came to the defendant's use or that they were put into the lorry. The defendant denied receiving any account prior to the action, which the court doubted.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant employer is liable for goods ordered by his lorry driver without actual authority.
  2. Whether there is a custom in the transport business for a lorry driver to order goods on behalf of his employer.
  3. Whether the driver had ostensible authority to pledge the defendant's credit for petrol and motor products.
  4. Whether the defendant's failure to dispute previous invoices constituted ratification of the driver's orders.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiffs for Sh. 460/40.
  • Interest at 8% from filing until judgment.
  • Costs on the subordinate Court scale.
  • Interest on the decretal amount at 8% from judgment until payment.

Rules and key headnotes

Agency - Authority to Contract - Custom in Transport Business
There is no custom in the transport business for a lorry driver to order goods on behalf of his employer.
Agency - Principal's Liability - Requirements for Authority
In order to make a principal liable for an order given by a person purporting to be his agent, actual or ostensible authority to contract for the principal, or ratification, must be proved.
Agency - Ostensible Authority - Employment Relationship
The mere relation of master and servant does not of itself involve in law authority to pledge the master's credit for supplies related to the master's business operations.
Agency - Ostensible Authority - Holding Out
To establish ostensible authority, there must be evidence of holding out by the principal of the agent as having authority to pledge the principal's credit; a supplier acting solely on representations made by the purported agent, without ascertaining authority from the principal, takes the risk of those statements being true or false.
Agency - Ratification - Failure to Dispute Accounts
Mere neglect by a principal to dispute accounts sent in by a supplier does not constitute conduct from which ratification of unauthorised orders can be deduced.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Civil Procedure Code s.11

Cases cited (3)

  • Wright v Glyn (1002 1 KB 745)
  • Rime.!!. v. Sam.pa?/s 171 E.R. p. 1184
  • Precious v Abet (170 ER 381)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kenya Farmers Association Ltd v Abubakar (C.C. 12-1031 (Eldoret).) [1931] EACA 9 (1 January 1931)
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.