Principles

·  TORT—Deceit — Willful misrepresentation of possessor of stolen property.

Representation of the possessor of a stolen bicycle as an honest and reliable person to a prospective purchaser of the property is actionable as the tort of deceit. and the purchaser, who had to surrender the bicycle to the true owner, could recover the purchase price

Judgment

• Court: M. A. Abu Rannat, C.J. and M. A. Hassib, J.

Advocate: Abdel Wahab El Khidir ……………….for applicant

M.A.Abu Rannat, C.J. October 2, 1961 :— On May 3, 1959 a certain Abdel Megi Abdo Rabbo lodged an information to the PoIice to the effect  that on April 25, 1959, an unknown person took from his shop a bicycle  on hire, and failed to return it to him. On June 11, 1959. the bicycle in question was found with U Nur Koko. the plaintiff in Civil Suit No 1505-1959  Omdurman District Court. On being interrogatcd by the Police, the  plaintiff stated that the defendant Abdel Aziiz. Mohamed Ali, who was and is still well known to him, brought to him the bicycle in question and offered it to him for sale. He slated the defendant was then accompanied by a person who was then unknown to him and only knew of his name as Abbas Mohamed Sid Ahmed after the lodging of the information He stated that the defendant represented to him that Abbas was a good and honest person and that in reliance on this assurance, he bought the bicycle for £S. 9. He also stated that he demanded an invoice for the sale from defendant, and the invoice was signed by Abbas Mohamed Sid as seller and the defendant as a witness. Of the £S.9.000m/ms a sum of FT. IS was paid to defendant as commission.

The plaintiff and Abbas Mphamed Sid Ahmed were tried and convicted by I the Omdurman Bench of Magistrates for receiving stolen property, but on appeal by the plaintiff, the Judge of the 11 Court (Mr. Justice Ahdc Magid lmam) quashed the conviction against him.

On October 22. 1959, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant claiming the recovery of £S.8.750m/ms, the price paid by him for the bicycle, which was later found to be stolen and was returned to its lawful owner. The District Judge gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff and passed a decree on June 11. 1960, ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff £S. 8.750m/ms  in principal and ..930m/ms  costs.

Against this decree, the defendant applied for revision to the Judge of the High Court, the Honourable Mr. Justice Abdi Magid lmam, who on hearing the parties set aside the decree of June 11, 1960 and dismissed, the plaintiff’s claim. The learned Judge made the following note:

            The evidence heard both in this ease and in the criminal case shows that respondent was not a honourable purchaser. He did not come to the Court with clean hands and ‘he cannot therefore benefit from his guilt.”

With.respect to the learned Judge, we believe that if he was guilty of an offence  he should not have been acquitted by the same learned Judge.

However, on the evidence before the civil Court, we are of the opinion that the defendant  committed the wrong of deceit, which is actionable in lort. The evidence shows that the defendant represented to the plaintiff that Abbas Mohamed Sid Ahmed was a reliable and honest person and that he was the nephew of a certain Haddad. It turned out that the said Abbas was not an honest or reliable person and that he either stole the bicycle or received it from a person knowing that it was stolen. -In such circumstances, the defendant made a wilfully false statement with intent that the plaintiff should act in reliance on it, with the result that he purchased the bicycle, which was ultimately found to be stolen property.

We therefore find that the plaintiff was entitled to recover purchase price from the defendant together with all consequential costs

M.A. Hassib, J., October 2, 1961 :— I concur.

EL NUR KOKO v. ABDEL AZIZ MOHAMED

[Back]

Case No.:

AC-REV-124-1961

Court:

Court of Appeal

Issue No.:

1963

Principles

·  TORT—Deceit — Willful misrepresentation of possessor of stolen property.

Representation of the possessor of a stolen bicycle as an honest and reliable person to a prospective purchaser of the property is actionable as the tort of deceit. and the purchaser, who had to surrender the bicycle to the true owner, could recover the purchase price

Judgment

(COURT OF APPEAL)

EL NUR KOKO v. ABDEL AZIZ MOHAMED

AC-REV-124-1961

.

• Court: M. A. Abu Rannat, C.J. and M. A. Hassib, J.

Advocate: Abdel Wahab El Khidir ……………….for applicant

M.A.Abu Rannat, C.J. October 2, 1961 :— On May 3, 1959 a certain Abdel Megi Abdo Rabbo lodged an information to the PoIice to the effect  that on April 25, 1959, an unknown person took from his shop a bicycle  on hire, and failed to return it to him. On June 11, 1959. the bicycle in question was found with U Nur Koko. the plaintiff in Civil Suit No 1505-1959  Omdurman District Court. On being interrogatcd by the Police, the  plaintiff stated that the defendant Abdel Aziiz. Mohamed Ali, who was and is still well known to him, brought to him the bicycle in question and offered it to him for sale. He slated the defendant was then accompanied by a person who was then unknown to him and only knew of his name as Abbas Mohamed Sid Ahmed after the lodging of the information He stated that the defendant represented to him that Abbas was a good and honest person and that in reliance on this assurance, he bought the bicycle for £S. 9. He also stated that he demanded an invoice for the sale from defendant, and the invoice was signed by Abbas Mohamed Sid as seller and the defendant as a witness. Of the £S.9.000m/ms a sum of FT. IS was paid to defendant as commission.

The plaintiff and Abbas Mphamed Sid Ahmed were tried and convicted by I the Omdurman Bench of Magistrates for receiving stolen property, but on appeal by the plaintiff, the Judge of the 11 Court (Mr. Justice Ahdc Magid lmam) quashed the conviction against him.

On October 22. 1959, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendant claiming the recovery of £S.8.750m/ms, the price paid by him for the bicycle, which was later found to be stolen and was returned to its lawful owner. The District Judge gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff and passed a decree on June 11. 1960, ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff £S. 8.750m/ms  in principal and ..930m/ms  costs.

Against this decree, the defendant applied for revision to the Judge of the High Court, the Honourable Mr. Justice Abdi Magid lmam, who on hearing the parties set aside the decree of June 11, 1960 and dismissed, the plaintiff’s claim. The learned Judge made the following note:

            The evidence heard both in this ease and in the criminal case shows that respondent was not a honourable purchaser. He did not come to the Court with clean hands and ‘he cannot therefore benefit from his guilt.”

With.respect to the learned Judge, we believe that if he was guilty of an offence  he should not have been acquitted by the same learned Judge.

However, on the evidence before the civil Court, we are of the opinion that the defendant  committed the wrong of deceit, which is actionable in lort. The evidence shows that the defendant represented to the plaintiff that Abbas Mohamed Sid Ahmed was a reliable and honest person and that he was the nephew of a certain Haddad. It turned out that the said Abbas was not an honest or reliable person and that he either stole the bicycle or received it from a person knowing that it was stolen. -In such circumstances, the defendant made a wilfully false statement with intent that the plaintiff should act in reliance on it, with the result that he purchased the bicycle, which was ultimately found to be stolen property.

We therefore find that the plaintiff was entitled to recover purchase price from the defendant together with all consequential costs

M.A. Hassib, J., October 2, 1961 :— I concur