Wakilii

Saif v Sholan (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1955)

East African Court of Appeal · [1955] EACA 301 · 1955 Cross-Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Supreme Court of Aden concerning licence termination and possession of premises
Decision
Cross-appeal allowed; licensor granted possession of premises and return of furniture by 31st July 1955

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 reversed the trial judge's finding that the licence was for two years certain. The appellate court held that the trial judge failed to consider two material factors: the licensee's failure to respond to the termination notice asserting his rights under an alleged written agreement, and his subsequent negotiations for a new agreement when he claimed to have twelve months remaining. An appellate court may interfere with findings of fact where the trial judge has failed to take account of particular circumstances or probabilities material to an estimate of the evidence.

Outcome

Cross-appeal allowed; licensor granted possession of premises and return of furniture by 31st July 1955

Facts

The respondent licensor brought proceedings in the Supreme Court of Aden for recovery of possession of premises occupied by the appellant licensee who operated a restaurant, and for recovery of furniture. The licensor claimed the licence was terminable at will. The licensee contended the licence was for two years with an option to renew for a further two years. The trial judge found the licence was for two years certain from 15th March 1953, but rejected the renewal option and dismissed the suit as premature. The licensor had given written notice on 31st July 1954 terminating the licence effective 1st September 1954. The licensee claimed there had been a written agreement in March 1953 but that he had lost his copy. He gave secondary evidence of its contents through his own testimony and two witnesses. In July-August 1954, the parties had negotiated a draft agreement for 12 months from 1st August 1954 at increased rent, which fell through.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellate court should interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact regarding the terms of the licence agreement.
  2. Whether the licence was for a fixed term of two years or terminable at will.
  3. Whether secondary evidence of an alleged written agreement was properly admitted and relied upon.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Cross-appeal allowed.
  • Decree of the Supreme Court set aside.
  • Licensor granted vacant possession of the suit premises on 31st July, 1955.
  • Licensee to return furniture to licensor on or before 31st July, 1955.
  • Licensor awarded costs of proceedings in Supreme Court.
  • Licensor awarded costs of appeal and cross-appeal.
  • Special order that only one fee for instructions be allowed on taxation for both appeal and cross-appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Appellate Review — Findings of Fact — Grounds for Interference
An appellate court is not bound to follow a trial judge's findings of fact if it appears either that the judge has clearly failed on some point to take account of particular circumstances or probabilities material to an estimate of the evidence, or if the impression based on the demeanour of a witness is inconsistent with the evidence in the case generally.
Credibility Assessment — Material Circumstances Overlooked
Where a trial judge bases acceptance of a party's evidence on demeanour and probabilities but fails to weigh indisputable factors against the oral testimony, an appellate court may reverse the finding of fact.
Secondary Evidence — Conduct Inconsistent with Claimed Rights
Where a party claims the existence of a written agreement conferring rights but fails to assert those rights when they are challenged and subsequently negotiates a new agreement inconsistent with the claimed subsisting rights, the probabilities weigh heavily against the truth of the evidence regarding the alleged written agreement.

Cases cited (1)

  • Khoo Sit Hoh v Lint Thean Tong (1912) AC 323

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Saif v Sholan (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1955) [1955] EACA 301 (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.