Ruku and Magori v. Magori (PC) Civ. App. 224-M-69: 15/3/71; Kisanga Ag. J.

Ruku and Magori v. Magori (PC) Civ. App. 224-M-69: 15/3/71; Kisanga Ag. J.

            The appellant and another person had agreed to transport the respondent’s vegetables by canoe to Jinja. The respondent dully harvested the vegetables but they were not transported and as a result, went bad and perished. Respondent sued to recover Shs. 3,140/- as loss arising from breach of contract.  The assessors allowed ¾ of the claim but the Primary Court Magistrate disagreed and allowed the respondent to recover only half the claim. His reasons were that: (a) while the vegetables were awaiting transportation they were not well looked after so that some were stolen due to fault of respondent; (b) there was no firm agreement since there was no writing document which would always be legally enforceable. The District upheld the opinion of the assessors. Appellant appealed.

                        Held: (1) “There was no evidence to justify a finding that the vegetables were not well looked after. (2) “Even assuming that some of the vegetables were stolen, it would seem that this would not affect the respondent’s claim. For if the appellant and Gideon agreed to transport them and the theft took place during the continuance of this failure, it seems to me that the appellant and Gideon were answerable for the resulting loss because it was occasioned by the failure to load the vegetables away and to transport them in accordance with their agreement.” (3) “Once he (the Magistrate) found that there was an agreement, and indeed there was sufficient evidence to support that finding, then to my mind the fact that such agreement was not in writing would not affect the portion. For, what really matters was the intention of the parties, and since there was sufficient evidence to show that the parties intended to and did in fact create contractual relations, then the court would enforce an agreement at least on grounds of equity.” (4) “The evidence shows that the parties merely agreed on the price for transporting the vegetables, but they did not stipulate the time of payment.” Therefore the respondent was under n obligation to pay any part of the contract price as a condition precedent in order to affirm the contract. (5) Appeal dismissed; judgment of District Court restored.