Wakilii

Kitching v Conforzi (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1939)

East African Court of Appeal · [1939] EACA 36 · 1939 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from decision of the High Court of Nyasaland dismissing claim without hearing evidence
Decision
Matter remitted to trial court to hear evidence and determine whether appellant has been paid all that is fair and reasonable for services rendered

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

Where an express contract of service cannot be enforced due to non-compliance with section 4 of the Statute of Frauds, the party who rendered services is entitled under an implied contract to reasonable remuneration for services actually rendered from the party who accepted and benefited from those services. The court does not enforce the unenforceable contract but recognises a different, enforceable implied contract to pay according to deserts.

Outcome

Matter remitted to trial court to hear evidence and determine whether appellant has been paid all that is fair and reasonable for services rendered

Facts

The appellant was engaged by the respondent for a four-year contract of service. No written agreement existed. The appellant worked for twenty-two months and claimed he had not been paid all he was entitled to, seeking an additional £2-1/- per month. The trial judge dismissed the claim without hearing evidence on the ground that section 4 of the Statute of Frauds required any collateral consideration to the agreement to be evidenced in writing. The appellant's advocate acknowledged the four-year contract was unenforceable but relied on an implied contract from year to year.

Issues

  1. Whether a party who has rendered services under an express contract of service unenforceable by reason of section 4 of the Statute of Frauds is entitled to reasonable remuneration for services actually rendered under an implied contract.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs in this Court.
  • Case sent back for retrial.
  • Costs of the first hearing to abide the result of the retrial.
  • Appellant to have costs of and incidental to the application for leave to appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Statute of Frauds — Contracts Not to be Performed Within a Year — Unenforceability
An express contract of service that cannot be performed within one year is unenforceable if not evidenced in writing as required by section 4 of the Statute of Frauds.
Contract Law — Implied Contract — Quantum Meruit — Services Rendered Under Unenforceable Contract
Where an express contract of service is unenforceable by reason of non-compliance with section 4 of the Statute of Frauds, a party who has rendered services under that contract is entitled under an implied contract to reasonable remuneration in respect of services actually rendered from the party who accepted and received the benefit of such services.
Contract Law — Implied Contract — Distinction from Enforcing Unenforceable Contract
A claim for reasonable remuneration under an implied contract for services rendered and accepted does not constitute enforcement of an unenforceable contract but recognition of a different contract which is enforceable.
Employment & Labour — Contract of Service — Remuneration — Right to Payment for Services Rendered
A party who has rendered services under a contract of service and whose services have been accepted and benefited from by the other party can sue in debt on an implied contract to pay according to deserts, even where the express contract is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Statute of Frauds s.4

Cases cited (1)

  • Scott v Pattison [1923] 2 KB 723

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kitching v Conforzi (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1939) [1939] EACA 36 (1 January 1939)
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.