COURT OF APPEAL)*
THE GERMAN & SWISS ENGINEERING & CONTRACTING CO............. Appel1ant and
HASSAN MIKHTAR ……..…………… Respondent
(AC-APP-1 1-1956)
Principles
·  Agency - Holding out - unnamed Principal - non-existent principal
The Respondent claimed that he had been employed by the Appellants, a partnership, when on the 14th June, 1954, he signed a contract with one Richard Altmann, who he claimed was acting as agent of the Appellants The contract contained no reference- to the Appellants and thus the Respondent had to adduce evidence that the Appellants or one of them had held out the said Richard Altmann to be their agent. The Appellant partnership was only formed on the 20th July, 1954.
Held: (i) The Appellants  not being in existence when the contract was reputed to have been entered into on their behalf, Richard Altmann could not have been their agent.
(2) There is no evidence that any member of the partnership  held out the said Richard Altnann to be the agent of the partnership Decision of Court below reversed.

Appeal
The facts are fully set out in the judgment of Abu Rannat C.J.
Advocates: Mohd. Ibrahim  Khallil….. for Appellants
Henri Riad………………………….. for Respondent
Abu Rannat C.J.: - On the 26th of February 1955,. the Plaintiff Hassan Mikhtar, brought an action against The German & Swiss
( Court: Abu Rannat C.J.; El Nur; Hassib JJ.
Engineering & Contracting Co., claiming LE.2,000 as damages, in respect of breach of a written contract between him and a certain Richard Altmann, on the allegation that the latter was the agent of the defendants.
On the. 14th of February 1956, the Judge of the High Court signed a decree against Dr. Ahmed Kamal, a member of the firm The German & Swiss Engineering & Contracting Co., ordering him to pay the plaintiff LE. 1ooo and costs. Dr. Ahmed Kamal is now appealing against this decree of the learned Judge of the High Court.
The admitted facts are these:
On the 14th  of June 1954, a written agreement contained in a document known as Exh ‘A’, was signed in Cairo by Richard Altmann on one part and Hassan Mikhtar on the other part. In fact the contract was signed by Ahmed Mikhtar, the brother of Hassan, in his capacity as agent of Hassan.
On the 20th July 1954, a partnership known as The German & Swiss Engineering & Contracting Co., was registered. The partners are Mohamed Osman Abdel Rahman and Ahmed Kamal Kosterlitz.
As I see it this appeal must be allowed. In the first place we must look at the document itself (Exh ‘A’). That document shows clearly that Richard Altmann was contracting in his own personal capacity. The document was not couched in words which show that he was acting for an undisclosed principal. It was clear that when he signed the contract, the partnership itself was not formed and therefore he could not, in law act for a non-existent body. Then we come to the evidence of Mohd. Mahmoud El Shaigi and  Ahmed Mikhtar. Mohd. Mahmoud El Shaigi stated that Ahmed Kamal admitted to him that Altmann was their agent. The simplest thing to do in such circumstances is to ask Ahmed Kamal, either to endorse the contract or make a written declaration to that effect. Ahmed Mikhtar states that he asked Ahmed Kamal to write an official declaration that Altmann represented the Company, and that Altmann was authorized to sign on behalf of the Company (p. 29 of the record). He states that Ahmed Kamal produced a written declaration containing such authority and that a copy of it was given to the plaintiff. This declaration was never produced in court to support this statement. If this document is produced, it may show whether a guarantee was given by Ahmed Kamal.
Ahmcd Kamal on the other hand states that the Sudan Agent told him that the record of Altmann was not satisfactory and asked for an assurance that he was a suitable person to be given a visa. Ahmed
Kamal further stated that he asked the Sudan Agent whether he wanted such a statement from him personally or from the firm of Abdalla Izzat & Co., and that the Sudan Agent asked for such a statement from the firm of Abdalla Izzat & Co. He states that a statement by the firm Abdalla Izzat & Co., guaranteeing the morality of Altmann was sent to the Sudan Agent. From this it appears that even if there was such guarantee, or a holding, out, that guarantee was made by the firm of Abdalla Izzat & Co., and not by the defendants. The plaintiff can only succeed if he proved that there was an agency between Altmann and the defendants either by estoppel or holding out. The law on such agency is illustrated in Article 5 of Bowstead’s Digest of the Law of Agency, which reads as follows:
“Where any person, by words or conduct, represents or permits “it to be represented that another person has authority to act on his “behalf, he is bound by the acts of such other person with respect of “any one dealing with him as an agent on the faith of such representation, ‘to the extent as if such other person had the authority which he was “so represented to have.”
I do not think that the plaintiff proved by preponderance of evidence that there was any holding out by Ahmed Kamal to the effect that Altmann was their agent.
In result the appeal is allowed and the claim is dismissed.
El Nur J. :……… I concur
Hassib J. :……… I concur
                                                                                     (Appeal allowed)