Wakilii

Rex v Hemani Provision Stores (Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 1951)

East African Court of Appeal · [1951] EACA 274 · 1951 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from acquittal by High Court of Uganda following Magistrate's finding of no case to answer
Decision
Respondents' acquittal 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 a completed sale occurred when goods were delivered with invoices stating the lawful maximum price and the customer accepted and retained them. A subsequent demand for a 10% surcharge on the monthly account, made after the sale was complete, did not constitute selling goods above the maximum price or imposing an illegal condition of sale. The surcharge demand was gratuitous and without consideration, as the property in the goods had already passed at the invoice price. The appeal was dismissed.

Outcome

Respondents' acquittal upheld

Facts

Hemani Provision Stores, retail provision merchants, dealt with customers on monthly credit terms. During August 1950, they delivered various provisions to customers, some subject to price control. Each delivery was accompanied by an invoice stating the lawful maximum price for price-controlled goods. In September, they sent a monthly account listing all invoices with their correct amounts. Each sheet of the account bore a rubber-stamped message: "When sending cheque please add 10 per cent more, being the difference in prices as you are not our register customer, or register your name soon." The Crown charged the respondents with selling price-regulated goods above maximum prices and imposing illegal conditions of sale. The Magistrate found no case to answer and acquitted. The High Court dismissed the Crown's appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether a 10% surcharge demanded on a monthly account after delivery of goods at invoice prices constituted selling price-regulated goods at prices exceeding the maximum fixed prices contrary to regulation 11(1) of the Defence (Control of Prices and Distribution) Regulations, 1943.
  2. Whether demanding a 10% surcharge as an alternative to customer registration constituted imposing an illegal condition of sale contrary to regulation 16 of the Defence (Control of Prices and Distribution) Regulations, 1943.
  3. Whether a completed sale had occurred at the time goods were delivered with invoices stating lawful maximum prices, before the monthly account with the surcharge demand was sent.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.

Rules and key headnotes

Contract Law — Formation of Contract — Completed Sale — Offer and Acceptance
A contract of sale is completed when a customer orders goods, the seller delivers them with an invoice indicating the price, and the customer accepts and retains the goods, at which point the property in the goods passes and an action for goods sold and delivered lies.
Contract Law — Validity of Contract — Undisclosed Intention — Effect on Completed Sale
The validity of a contract of bargain and sale of ascertained goods at an agreed price cannot be impugned, in the absence of mistake or misrepresentation, on the ground that the seller did not really intend to sell at that price or intended to impose an undisclosed condition.
Administrative Law — Price Control — Timing of Offence — Post-Sale Demand
A demand for additional payment made after the completion of a sale at the lawful maximum price does not constitute selling goods at prices exceeding the maximum fixed price under price control regulations, as the sale was already complete at the invoice price.
Administrative Law — Price Control — Conditions of Sale — Post-Sale Demand
A demand for additional payment made after goods have been sold and delivered does not constitute imposing a condition of sale, as the sale was completed before the demand was made and the demand is gratuitous and without consideration.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Defence (Control of Prices and Distribution) Regulations 1943 regulation 11(1)
  • Defence (Control of Prices and Distribution) Regulations 1943 regulation 16
  • Defence Regulations 1939
  • Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Order 1946
  • Supplies and Services (Continuance) Order 1950
  • Uganda Criminal Procedure Code 1950 s.209
  • Sale of Goods Ordinance Cap. 157

Cases cited (1)

  • Mischeff v Springett (1942) 2 AER 349

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Rex v Hemani Provision Stores (Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 1951) [1951] EACA 274 (1 January 1951)
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.