Ssekiranda v Zuure (H.C.C.S. NO. 24 OF 1992)
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 the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff for maize supplied and cash advanced. Payment by a third party purchaser was not a condition precedent to the defendant's obligation to pay. The third party purchaser was not privy to the contract between plaintiff and defendant. Interest at the agreed rate was awarded from the date claimed.
Outcome
Judgment entered in favour of plaintiff for the full amount claimed with interest
Facts
The plaintiff supplied maize to the defendant in two transactions in June 1992 totalling 8,651,170/-, of which 8,000,000/- was paid leaving a balance of 651,170/-. On 16 June 1992, he supplied further maize worth 7,801,200/-. On 13 July 1992, he advanced cash of 2,550,000/-. The defendant issued a cheque for 11,000,000/- which was dishonoured. The defendant contended she had sold maize flour jointly with the plaintiff to a third party, Yasin Sanad, who issued a cheque that bounced, and that she could only pay the plaintiff after being paid by Sanad. The defendant also claimed she had repaid 2,000,000/- of the cash advance.
Issues
- Whether or not the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff.
- Whether or not Yasin Sanad is a privy to the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant.
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest of 450,000/- per month as claimed.
Orders
- Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of 11,000,000/-.
- Interest awarded at the agreed rate of 450,000/- per month from July 1992 until payment in full.
- Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
Cases cited (1)
- African Overseas Trading Co v Tansukha S Acharya [1963] EA 468
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.