Wakilii

Premji v Janmohamed (C.A. 25-1930 (Msa.).)

East African Court of Appeal · [1930] EACA 131 · 1930 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from judgment of Resident Magistrate's Court in bill of exchange action
Decision
Judgment in favour of Overman & Co entered; liability under the altered bill of exchange discharged

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

An alteration of a bill of exchange by erasing the name of the payee and inserting another name in lieu thereof, without the consent of the acceptor, is a material alteration which discharges the bill as far as the acceptor is concerned under section 64 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. The contract of the acceptor has been materially varied by depriving him of knowledge of the payee's name and the power to notify the payee of any defect relating to the bill.

Outcome

Judgment in favour of Overman & Co entered; liability under the altered bill of exchange discharged

Facts

Overman & Co accepted four bills of exchange drawn by T.M. Jones and made payable to the Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd., Mombasa. One bill was altered by erasing the payee's name and inserting the name of Alibhai Janmohamed, with the erasure and addition initialled T.M.J. The trial court found the alteration was effected after acceptance by Overman & Co. The bill was negotiated to Alibhai Janmohamed and by him endorsed to Rahemtulla and Premji. When presented, the bill was not paid by Overman & Co. Rahemtulla and Premji sued Overman & Co as acceptor and Alibhai Janmohamed as indorser in the Resident Magistrate's Court. Judgment was given for the plaintiffs. Overman & Co appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the alteration of a bill of exchange by erasing the name of the payee and inserting another name without the consent of the acceptor constitutes a material alteration that discharges the bill under section 64 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment of the Court below against Overman & Co set aside.
  • Judgment entered for Overman & Co with costs.
  • Costs of the appeal to be paid by the respondent Rahemtulla and Premji to the appellants Overman & Co.

Rules and key headnotes

Bills of Exchange — Material Alteration — Change of Payee
An alteration of a bill of exchange by erasing the name of the payee and inserting another name without the consent of the acceptor is a material alteration under section 64 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 which discharges the bill as against the acceptor.
Bills of Exchange — Material Alteration — Test of Materiality
An alteration is material if it varies the contract of the party who accepted the bill, even where it does not affect the amount payable or the time for payment, by depriving the acceptor of knowledge of the payee's name and the power to notify the payee of any defect relating to the bill.
Bills of Exchange — Blank Payee Name — Authority to Insert
Where a bill is issued with a blank for the payee's name, the issuing of the bill with the blank constitutes authority to a bona fide holder to insert a name, but where a name has been filled in, there is no authority to alter that name.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (5)

  • Gardner v Walsh (1885) 5 El & Bl 89
  • Conner v Fitzsimon (1841) Jr Civ Rep 106
  • Asch Ltd v Dufresne (1910) QR 49 SC 508
  • Atwood v Griffin (172) ER 160
  • Tidmarsh v Grover (105) ER 275

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Premji v Janmohamed (C.A. 25-1930 (Msa.).) [1930] EACA 131 (1 January 1930)
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.