Wakilii

Scott Ellis and Co. Ltd v Kassam and Others (Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1926)

East African Court of Appeal · [1926] EACA 2 · 1926 Appeal Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from dismissal of action on promissory notes
Decision
Judgment entered for appellants on two of four promissory notes; claims on remaining two notes dismissed as statute-barred.

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

Held that promissory notes dated 17 November 1922 and payable on specified days and months without stating the year were valid and sufficiently certain, as common-sense construction indicated payment was due in the following year. A payment of Sh. 250 did not revive statute-barred claims as it was not appropriated to interest or evidenced as part payment of principal in the payer's handwriting. Judgment given only for notes not barred by limitation.

Outcome

Judgment entered for appellants on two of four promissory notes; claims on remaining two notes dismissed as statute-barred.

Facts

Appellants sued on five promissory notes. One note was insufficiently stamped and the claim was abandoned. The remaining four notes were all dated 17 November 1922 and made payable on 31 January, 28 February, 31 March, and 30 April respectively, with no year inserted after the day of the month. The trial judge dismissed the claims, finding the notes void for uncertainty due to the omission of the year. The only payment made was Sh. 250 on 6 October 1925. The writ was issued on 8 March 1926. Mr. Crossman testified that the payment was made in response to a demand for the amount claimed on all the notes and that he appropriated it to payment of the first two notes.

Issues

  1. Whether the omission to insert the year in the date of payment rendered promissory notes void for uncertainty.
  2. Whether a part payment made within the limitation period revived claims on statute-barred notes.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs in both Courts.
  • Judgment given for the plaintiffs on the notes due on 31st March and 30th April.
  • Interest on the principal sums at 6 per cent from the respective dates of dishonour to judgment of this Court.
  • Interest at 6 per cent on the decree of this Court to payment.

Rules and key headnotes

Bills of Exchange — Promissory Notes — Certainty of Payment Date
A promissory note dated with a specific day and bearing a date of issue is not void for uncertainty merely because the year of payment is omitted where common-sense construction indicates the months refer to the months of the following year after the date of issue.
Statutory Interpretation — Bills of Exchange Act — Definition of Promissory Note
Where a promissory note is dated 17 November 1922 and states payment is due on specified days and months without the year, the only reasonable construction is that such months refer to the months of the following year, making the dates on which the notes fall due sufficiently fixed to satisfy the definition of a bill of exchange.
Limitation — Part Payment — Revival of Statute-Barred Claim
To institute a new period of limitation, a payment must be either in respect of interest paid as such or of principal, and in the case of part payment of principal the fact of payment must appear in the handwriting of the person making the payment as required by the Limitation Act.
Limitation — Part Payment — Appropriation of Payment
Where a payment is made in response to a demand for amounts claimed on all notes and is pleaded as being on account of the total sum claimed, the plaintiff cannot subsequently allege the payment was on account of interest, and such payment has no effect in reviving claims barred by the statute of limitations.

Legislation cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Scott Ellis and Co. Ltd v Kassam and Others (Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1926) [1926] EACA 2 (1 January 1926)
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.