Manibhai Devidas Patel v Waduwa and Another (Civil Appeal 7 of 1998)
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 of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's undertaking in the acknowledgement (exhibit P1) to refund the money if the sale was not completed within six months constituted an independent contract binding on him. His entitlement to the balance of commission was conditioned on completion of the sale, which had not occurred within the stipulated time. The court further held that the appellant, having based his suit on exhibit P1 rather than the earlier agreement (exhibit D2), was bound by his own pleadings and could not succeed on a case not pleaded. The trial judge's findings on the facts and law were upheld.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment upheld with the appellant liable on the counterclaim
Facts
The appellant was manager of property at Plot 45 Naboa Road, Mbale, whose registered proprietors were abroad. The respondents, who were tenants wishing to buy the property, agreed with the appellant to be introduced to an agent to negotiate the purchase, with the appellant to receive UGX 20,000,000 as commission. On 1 December 1995 the respondents executed a sale agreement (exhibit P5) for UGX 35,000,000, with the final instalment payable only when the agent obtained power of attorney and delivered title free from encumbrances. The same day the appellant signed exhibit P1, acknowledging receipt of UGX 10,000,000 and undertaking to refund it with 20% interest if the sale was not completed within six months. By September 1996 the respondents had taken possession but the agent had not delivered clear title. The appellant sued for the balance of his commission. The respondents counterclaimed for a refund. The trial judge found the sale was not completed within the meaning of section 51 of the Registration of Titles Act, dismissed the suit, and awarded UGX 5,000,000 on the counterclaim.
Issues
- Whether the appellant's contractual right to commission depended on the completion of the sale contract between the agent/vendor and the respondents.
- Whether the trial judge erred in basing his decision on exhibit P1 (agreement of 1 December 1995) rather than exhibit D2 (agreement of 25 October 1995).
- Whether the appellant could succeed on a case not set out in his pleadings.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Costs to the respondents in this court and the court below.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
Cases cited (1)
- Interfreight Forwarders (U) Ltd v East African Development Bank (Civil Appeal No. 33 of 1993)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.