Recent Posts

6/recent/ticker-posts

Hamisi Mlezi v. Umoja Printers, Civ. App. 8-D-68, 31/7/68, Duff J.



Hamisi Mlezi v. Umoja Printers, Civ. App. 8-D-68, 31/7/68, Duff J.

Plaintiff sued defendant on a dishonored cheque issued by him and was granted judgment. The cheque had been given by defendant to plaintiff and signed by him but with a rubber stamp marked “Bashir & Company” affixed to the cheque. In 1955, Bashir & Company was registered under the Business Names (Registration) Ordinance, Cap. 213, and the defendant was the person authorized to operate its bank account. Defendant alleged that he had signed the cheque on behalf of a principal or in a representative character, and so was not personally liable, by virtue of s. 26(1) of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance, Cap. 215.

            Held: The defendant is personally liable on the cheque. “Examination of the cheque reveals that it was not said in terms that he was signing on behalf of a company, and the fact that the same ‘Bashir & Company’ was rubber-stamped on the cheque without further ado did not automatically exclude his liability …… A court is entitled to look at the surrounding circumstances under which the bill was signed, and this the lower court did. The court accepted, as it was entitled to do, the evidence adduced which established that the appellant was personally liable.” 

Post a Comment

0 Comments