Wakilii

Murji and Another v Dattu (Civil Appeal No. 75 of 1954)

East African Court of Appeal · [1955] EACA 305 · 1955 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal from High Court of Tanganyika which had set aside District Court judgment in favour of seller
Decision
Seller's claim for difference in price between sale and resale upheld; buyer's repudiation rejected

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 sale was by description and the goods were within the commercial description of 'black pepper' as used and understood by spice dealers, notwithstanding that they were not botanically piper nigrum. The Court further held that property in the goods had passed to the buyer at auction and under section 13(1)(c) of the Sale of Goods Ordinance the buyer could not repudiate but was relegated to a claim for damages. Appeal allowed.

Outcome

Seller's claim for difference in price between sale and resale upheld; buyer's repudiation rejected

Facts

In November 1950 the seller sold seven bags containing approximately 1,192 lb of 'black pepper' by auction in Dar es Salaam to the buyer at Sh. 3/10 per lb. The goods were available for inspection before auction and were inspected and tasted by prospective buyers. The buyer signed a memorandum of sale which stated no guarantee was given for quality or quantity. On 18 November 1950 the buyer purported to repudiate the sale on the ground that a certificate from the Department of Agriculture stated the goods were dried berries of Schinus Molle (pepper tree) and not berries of true black pepper (piper nigrum). The seller gave notice of intention to resell and the goods were resold by auction on 20 March 1951 at Sh. 2092/50. The seller sued for the difference in price plus customs duties and rent. Evidence showed that the market price for 'genuine black pepper' (piper nigrum) was Sh. 27-30 per lb, that a Government Chemist's certificate confirmed the goods were chemically black pepper, and that spice traders in Dar es Salaam used the description 'black pepper' to cover the goods sold.

Issues

  1. Whether goods sold as 'black pepper' at auction corresponded with that description when they were botanically seeds of Schinus Molle rather than piper nigrum
  2. Whether the buyer had accepted the goods and was therefore precluded from repudiating the contract

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Decree of the High Court set aside.
  • Decree of the District Court restored.
  • Appellant to have costs of trial and both appeals.

Rules and key headnotes

Sale of Goods — Sale by Description — Commercial Description
Where goods are sold by description at auction, the description must be understood according to its commercial meaning as used and understood by traders in that market, not solely by its botanical or scientific definition.
Sale of Goods — Sale by Description — Correspondence with Description
Goods sold as 'black pepper' correspond with that description if they are commercially known and traded as black pepper in the relevant market, even if they are not botanically the fruit of piper nigrum, provided the commercial usage is established by evidence.
Sale of Goods — Auction Sales — Passing of Property
A sale by auction is complete and property passes to the buyer when the auctioneer announces completion by the fall of the hammer or in other customary manner.
Sale of Goods — Acceptance — Effect on Right to Repudiate
Where a contract of sale is for specific goods and property has passed to the buyer, any breach of condition by the seller can only be treated as breach of warranty and not as ground for rejecting the goods and repudiating the contract, unless there is an express or implied term to that effect.
Sale of Goods — Buyer's Remedies — After Property Passes
After property in goods has passed to the buyer, the question of acceptance does not arise and the buyer cannot repudiate for breach of condition but is relegated to an action for damages.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Sale of Goods Ordinance (Cap. 214) s.13(1)(c)
  • Sale of Goods Ordinance (Cap. 214) s.16(b)
  • Sale of Goods Ordinance (Cap. 214) s.20
  • Sale of Goods Ordinance (Cap. 214) s.59(b)

Cases cited (8)

  • Joseph Travers & Sons Ltd v Longel Ltd (1948) 64 TLR 150
  • Arcos Ltd v E Ronaasen & Son [1933] AC 470
  • Wallis Son & Wells v Pratt & Haynes [1911] AC 394
  • Nichol v Godts (1854) 23 LJCL 314
  • Josling v Kingsford (1863) 13 CB (NS) 447
  • Dennant v Skinner [1948] 2 KB 164
  • Bog Lead Mining Co v Montague (1861) 10 CB (NS) 481
  • R. v. Gokaldas Karia 16 E.A.C.A. 116

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Murji and Another v Dattu (Civil Appeal No. 75 of 1954) [1955] EACA 305 (1 January 1955)
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.