THE UNITED AFRICA COMPANY LIMITED V. SAKAOWOADE

POLICY AND PRACTICE LAW REPORTS, 2PLR

Search

Search

–

THE UNITED AFRICA COMPANY LIMITED

V.

SAKAOWOADE

THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL

13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1954

PRIVY COUNCIL APPEAL NO. 30 OF 1952

2PLR/1954/24 (PC)

–

OTHER CITATION(S)

2PLR/1954/24 (PC)

(1954) P.C. 30-1952

(1954) XIII WACA PP. 207-212

LEX (1954) – P.C. 30

–

BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS:

LORD OAKSEY,

LOAN KEITH OF AVONHOUM,

MR. L. M. D. DE SILVA

–

BETWEEN:

THE UNITED AFRICA COMPANY LIMITED – Appellant

AND

SAKAOWOADE – Respondent

–

ISSUE(S) FROM THE COURT(S) OF ACTION

EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR LAW – MASTER-SERVANT RELATIONSHIP:- Liability of master for wrong committed by servant in the course of his employment –  How determined – Whether a legal distinction exists between liability for fraud and other kinds of wrong

TRANSPORTATION LAW – ROAD:- Liability for wrong by agent/servant in the course of transportation of goods – How determined – Distinction between a common carrier and an ordinary carrier – Relevance of 

TORT AND PERSONAL INJURY LAW:- Conversion/theft of goods – Where proved against servant – Liability of master thereto

–

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE ISSUE(S)

APPEAL – SECURITY OF COST:- Order for appellant to enter into good and sufficient security for certain sum – Cash deposit into court for the sum specified – Whether suffices

PLEADINGS:- Allegation alternative claims not pleaded – Both claims arising out of same facts – Pleadings sufficient – Order 22, rule 8, Civil Procedure Rules considered

–

CASE SUMMARY

This appeal turned on the construction to be placed on pleadings which are fully set out in the judgment of the Board. The point at issue was to what extent it is necessary for a plaintiff who relies on two causes of action arising out of the same facts to plead each cause of action separately and distinctly.

A subsidiary point was whether the West African Court of Appeal was correct in refusing leave to appeal to the Privy Council on the grounds that an Order to enter into a good and sufficient security in a sum stated was not satisfied by deposit of that sum into Court.

–

DECISION(S) OF THE WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL

Held that:

1.     If the respondent were a common carrier then he would be liable for the non-delivery unless he could establish one of the very few excuses available to a common carrier such as Act of God. If he were not a common carrier he could, of course, escape liability by showing that the goods were lost without any fault on his part.

2.     The distinction between the case as against a common carrier and as against an ordinary carrier lay not so much in the facts to be established by the plaintiffs but the defences open to the respondent.

3.     Lloyd v. Grace Smith & Co. establishes the principle that a master is liable for his servant’s fraud perpetrated in the course of the master’s business whether the fraud was committed for the master’s benefit or not. The only question is whether the fraud was committed in the course of the servant’s employment.

4.     In the present case the fair inference from the facts proved is that the goods were committed expressly to the respondent’s servants and that they converted the goods whilst they were on the journey which the respondent had undertaken to carry out and the conversion therefore was therefore in the course of the employment of the respondent’s servants.

5.     There is no difference in the liability of a master for wrongs whether for fraud or any other wrong committed by a servant in the course of his employment. It is a question of fact in each case whether the wrong was committed in the course of the servant’s employment and in the present case, the conversion of the appellants’ goods took place in the course of the employment of the respondent’s servants.

6.     It is too narrow a construction of the words of the Order to treat the actual deposit of the sum in which the appellants were ordered to find security as insufficient on the ground that the appellants did not “enter into good and sufficient security.” The sum of money was as good as, if not better than, a bond and on the strict wording of the Order.

7.     Order 22, rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules which requires a plaintiff with several distinct claims to state each separately and distinctly was not applicable in this case, because both causes of action were grounded on the same facts.

Cases referred to:-

(1) Cheshire v. Bailey (1905), 1 K.B. 237.

(2) Lloyd v. Grace Smith & Co. (1912), A .C. 716.

–

DOWNLOAD PREMIUM PDF COPY (N2,000)

READ MORE

JUDGMENTS BY AREAS OF PRACTICE

JUDGMENTS BY PRACTICE/PROCEDURE ISSUES