Wakilii

Preston v Ortlepp (C.A. 10-1934.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1937] EACA 119 · 1937 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Supreme Court of Kenya against finding on agreed rent and binding effect of attorney's alleged new agreement
Decision
Appeal dismissed; trial court's finding on agreed rent upheld

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 evidence and correspondence supported the trial judge's finding that the agreed rent was Sh. 300 per month. Verbal evidence by a party that a Power of Attorney contained full power is admissible as an admission against the party, notwithstanding Indian Evidence Act s.91. However, where an attorney purports to enter a new agreement beyond his known authority, such agreement does not bind the principal without ratification under Indian Contract Act s.237. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; trial court's finding on agreed rent upheld

Facts

The plaintiff landlord agreed to let Eldorean Hall to the defendant tenant for the year 1933. Dispute arose as to whether the agreed rent was Sh. 300 or Sh. 200 per month. Before departing to South Africa, the plaintiff granted a power of attorney to Mr. Croxford. The defendant claimed that Croxford subsequently agreed to a monthly tenancy at Sh. 200 per month, superseding the original arrangement. The trial judge found that the agreed rent was Sh. 300 per month based on evidence of the plaintiff and correspondence from an interview on 8th or 10th December 1932. The defendant appealed, arguing that Croxford's alleged new agreement bound the plaintiff under the power of attorney.

Issues

  1. Whether the evidence and correspondence established that the agreed rent was Sh. 300 per month.
  2. Whether verbal evidence by a party and her attorney that a Power of Attorney contained a full power is admissible as an admission under the Indian Evidence Act s.91.
  3. Whether an agreement allegedly entered into by an attorney beyond the scope of his authority binds the principal without ratification under Indian Contract Act s.237.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Admissions — Verbal Evidence of Contents of Written Instrument
Verbal evidence by a party that a Power of Attorney contained a full power is admissible on the ground that what a party says is primary evidence against himself as an admission, even though it relates to the contents of a written instrument.
Contract Law — Agency — Authority of Agent — Acts Beyond Scope of Authority
Where an attorney enters into an agreement beyond the scope of his authority, and the other party has knowledge that the act exceeds the attorney's authority, such agreement does not bind the principal unless ratified by the principal.
Contract Law — Lease Agreements — Determination of Agreed Rent
Where evidence and correspondence from the parties support a finding as to the agreed rent, and contrary evidence does not favourably impress the trial judge, the appellate court will uphold the trial judge's finding on the agreed rent.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Indian Evidence Act s.91
  • Indian Contract Act s.237
  • Indian Contract Act s.196
  • Indian Contract Act s.58

Cases cited (3)

  • Slatterie v Pooley (1840) 10 LJ Ex 8
  • Bristow v. Whitmore, 1861, 11. English Reports
  • L.R. 2 Exchequer p. 259

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Preston v Ortlepp (C.A. 10-1934.) [1937] EACA 119 (1 January 1937)
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.