ABDEL MONEIM AHMED ALI v. MASOUD AWAD MASOUD

(COURT OF APPEAL)*

ABDEL MONEIM AHMED ALI v. MASOUD AWAD MASOUD

AC-R V-209-1966

Principles

· Con trace—Motor sale—Failure to register change of ownership by seller does not render contract illegal and unenforceable by him

· Rood Traffic—Registration of change of ownership—Road Traffic Act. 1962, s. 12— Imposes a duty to give notice when ownership of vehicle is changed—Does not affect ownership nor title of owner

When a seller of a motor vehicle sells without registration to the purchaset, the contract of sale is not illegal and unenforceable by him; because the Road Traffic Act. 1962, s.12, imposes a duty to give notice to the licensing authonty of the change of ownership and does not affect the ownership nor the title of the owner. Therefore title to the vehicle is transferable irrespective of registration.

Judgment

Advocate: Salah Marhoum ………………………………...for respondent

Osman El Tayeb J. November 27, 1966: —By a written agreement dated September 30, 1960; defendant sold to plaintiff a second-hand vehicle—_Morris Saloon No. K 2513--for the price of £S.100, 000m/ms. The sale was completed by delivery of the vehicle and payment of the said price. Another written document bearing the same date, was made and signed by defendant, addressed to the Executive Officer of Khartoum Municipal Council, requesting him to change the registration of that vehicle “which was registered in the name of Osman Mohamed Salih.” the name of plaintiff.

Plaintiff took possession of the vehicle, and also kept thj latter docu ment, which was intended, as it so clearly stipulated, to be used for the change of the registration of the vehicle from the name of Osrnan Mohamed Salih to his own name. On March 31, 1961, plaintiff insured the vehicle against third party risks, and the cover note was issued in his name, and also renewed the licence of it for that same year.

Some time later (not clear in the evidence) plaintiff approached the Licensing Authorities, in order to have the change of the registration of the vehicle to his name. The official records revealed that the vehicle was not registered in the name of Osman Mohamed Salih, but in the name of a person who was dead at the, time of the inquiry. The evidence further revealed that the said Osman Mohamed Salih sold the vehicle to one named Mustafa Mohamed Ahmed, and the latter sold it to defendant, and in each of those two transactions, a document similar to the one written by defendant to plaintiff for the sake of change of registration was written. The ownership of the vehicle passed to the above-mentioned three persons without any of them giving notice to the Licensing Authority for change of the Register. On these facts the three of them were on or about October 2, 1962, prosecuted under the Road Traffic Act, 1962, s. 12.

The change of the registration in the name of plaintiff has not been effected, it seems because the Licensing Authority asked for a’ document of transfer from the original owner, whose name appeared in their records, and this was impossible to do.

Early in January 1963, plaintiff instituted his suit claiming recovery of the purchase price plus the sums that he paid for insurance and renewal of the licence of the vehicle, on the ground that defendant failed to register the vehicle in his name. The learned District Judge decided the case in favour of plaintiff. His reasons were that defendant failed to transfer the ownership of the vehicle to plaintiff, by his failure to effect its registration in his name, which is required to be don.e by the Road Traffic Act. “As a result,” he said, “of the defendant’s failure to fulfil his obligation, plaintiff is entitled to rescind the contract and claim back his money.”

The application for revision to the learned Province Judge was sum marily dismissed by him. His main reason that is worthy of discussion here, is that the defendant had no title to the vehicle that he sold, and so plaintiff was entitled to recover the purchase price.

In my opinion the case was wrongly decided, on a misunderstanding of the effect of the absence of registration under the Road Traffic Act on the ownership of a vehicle. There is no doubt that it is wrong to think that the absence of registration is the same as absence of ownership of a vehicle, or is the same as absence of title, that is necessary for transfer of the goods in the vehicle to a purchaser. The relevant section 12 requires notice of the change of ownership to be given to the Licensing Authority by the registered owner and the new owner has to make an application and pay a small fee for change of the register. It has no effect on the ownership nor on the title that is validly transferable from one person to another. Neither the transaction to transfer, nor the transfer of the title to the vehicle is prohibited or invalidated by the section. The purpose of the registration of vehicles is to enable the Police or the Licensing Authority to know the person they can call for, if any contravention of the Road Traffic Act is committed by the user of the vehicle concerned on the road. In a dispute between individuals it is no more than a piece of evidence, subject to contradiction by other evidence.

In the present case, defendant was the owner of the vehicle in dispute. This was so since nobody has yet disputed his ownership to it. The fact that it was not registered in his name is not a dispute to his owner ship. When he sold it to the plaintiff he passed a good title to him. It is the same good title he had, the property in the vehicle passed to plaintiff, and he became the owner of the vehicle. Though it is unnecessary for this conclusion, it has to be mentioned that at the time of sale, plaintiff knew that the vehicle was not registered in the name of defendant, and plaintiff received from defendant the letter addressed to the Licensing Authority in which it was mentioned that a third person was the one in whose name the vehicle was registered. Therefore, it was wrong to say that defendant practised any deceit or made any false representation to plaintiff in that respect.

In these circumstances the plaintiff is not entitled to rescind the agreement and seek to return the vehicle and recover the money he had paid. His claim is unfounded; there was no breach of condition of title reason of the failure of defendant to effect the change of own according to the Road Traffic Act, s. 12. The important thing is that he was the undisputed owner and that same ownership vested in plaintiff. The fears of the plaintiff that the vehicle belonged to a dead person, and he could riot use the dead person’s car; have to be allayed by adapting himself to the realities of life. He ought to have sought the legal pro cedure through which he might have thç registration changed to his name. I think he would have found it easy.

This application is allowed with costs, and the decree of the District Judge is set aside.

Salah Eddin Hassan J. November 27, 1966: —I entirely agree and I would like to add that the Police Vehicle Registration Book is mainly intended for things concerning public order and control of traffic contra ventions. In this case there was a valid sale, which was concluded by actual delivery. The proper action for respondent was to rectify the police register either by a declaration or an order from the court and not by seeking to set aside the transaction on no grounds. It is quite apparent that there is no fraud, mistake, duress, illegality or any vitiating element to set aside the transaction.

Editor’s Note: But see Abdulla Beshir Adam v. Mirgani Mohamed Abu Eisa, AC-REV- 165-1960, (1964) S.L.J.R 123.