Wakilii

Lalji v Mhembe (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1941)

East African Court of Appeal · [1941] EACA 20 · 1941 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal from decree of High Court of Tanganyika in its appellate capacity
Decision
Appeal dismissed; respondent entitled to repayment of deposit

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 money deposited for safe custody and repayable on demand is governed by Article 60 of the Indian Limitation Act, giving a three-year limitation period from the date of demand. An unstamped document acknowledging receipt of money deposited is a receipt within the Stamp Ordinance and admissible in evidence on payment of penalty. Where leave to appeal is granted in general terms, the right of appeal is not limited by section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; respondent entitled to repayment of deposit

Facts

On 24 September 1933, the respondent deposited Sh. 1,116 with the appellant, an Indian shopkeeper, for safe custody. A document in Gujarati and Kiswahili was written evidencing the deposit. The respondent had accumulated the money through many years of cultivation. The appellant denied receiving the deposit and challenged the authenticity of the document. The respondent made his first demand for repayment and instituted suit on 1 October 1940. The document was unstamped. Both the Subordinate Court and the High Court on first appeal found in favour of the respondent, holding the document genuine and the suit timeous.

Issues

  1. Whether the transaction was a deposit repayable on demand or a loan, and which limitation period applied.
  2. Whether an unstamped document constituted a receipt or an acknowledgment for stamp duty purposes, and whether it was admissible in evidence.
  3. Whether a second appeal from the High Court in its appellate capacity could be brought on questions of fact.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Deposit — Distinction from Loan — Limitation Period
Money deposited for safe custody under an agreement that it shall be repayable on demand constitutes a deposit and not a loan, and is governed as to limitation by Article 60 of the Second Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, which provides a three-year limitation period running from the time demand is made.
Evidence — Stamp Duty — Unstamped Documents — Admissibility — Receipt versus Acknowledgment
A document acknowledging receipt of money deposited is a receipt within the meaning of sections 2(23) and 39(b) of the Stamp Ordinance and is admissible in evidence on payment of the prescribed penalty for non-stamping, notwithstanding that it may also constitute an acknowledgment of a debt.
Evidence — Stamp Duty — Definition of Receipt — Scope of Section 2(23)
The definition of receipt in section 2(23)(a) of the Stamp Ordinance covers money received whether in satisfaction of a debt or otherwise, and is not restricted to documents acknowledging discharge of a liability. The term receipt should be given the same wide meaning in section 39 as in section 2(23).
Civil Procedure — Second Appeal — Scope of Appeal — Questions of Fact
Where leave to appeal against a decree of the High Court in its appellate capacity has been given in general terms under the Appeals to the Court of Appeal Ordinance, the right of appeal is unfettered by the limitation contained in section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, which restricts second appeals to questions of law.
Evidence — Stamp Duty — Penal Enactment — Construction in Favour of Subject
The Stamp Ordinance being a penal enactment, any doubt as to whether a document falls within a particular category for stamp duty purposes must be resolved in favour of the person penalised by any failure to stamp.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Indian Limitation Act, Second Schedule, Article 60
  • Stamp Ordinance (Tanganyika) s.2(23)
  • Stamp Ordinance (Tanganyika) s.39
  • Civil Procedure Code s.100
  • Appeals to the Court of Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 2) s.8(1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Lalji v Mhembe (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1941) [1941] EACA 20 (1 January 1941)
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.