(COURT OF APPEAL)*

EL FONSE KAMIL v. SAMIRA SULEIMAN ABADIR

AC-REV-183, 1964

Principles

·  Contract-misrepresentation-should effect the mind of the parties as inducing cause of the contract

Applicant defendant and respondent plaintiff were engaged later applicant broke the engagement after discovering that the cost of the furniture would respondent was more than what was stated in the engagment document. The trial Court found that there was a breach of contract on behalf of applicant High Court Judge confirmed the Court’s decision.

Held: the decision of the trial Court is confirmed because the misrepresentation of the age of the girl, respondent, did not operate on the mind of the applicant at the time of and before the engagement, as an inducing cause of the  contract, which entitled him to break the engagement.

Judgment

Advocate: Abdalla Nagib………………………………………………….for applicant : M. A. Abu Rannat C.J July 2 1964:-This is case for breach of an agreement to marry on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation.

Both the District Judge and the Judge of the High Court on revision found that there was a breach of contract on the part of the defendant, who is the applicant to this Court.

The important point in this application is  whether the age of respondent operated on the mind of applicant at the time of and before the engagement and thus induced him to enter into the agreemet.

The answer, in my view is defintely No.

“In order that a misrepresentation, whether fraudulent or innocent, should invalidate a contract, it is necessary that it shoul have actually operated on the mind of the contracting party as an inducement to the making of the contract in other words he must have relied on the  misrepresentation made to him and have contracted on the faith of it………” Salimond and Willams, Contracts (2nd ed, 1945)p. 251.

The record shows that on November 15. 1959 in the morning both parties went to a carpenter’s shop to buy furniture that the cost of furniture was very expensive-at least more than Ł s 400.000 m/ms hat applicant was supposed to pay for it, and that at least an advance of Ł s, 100.000 m/ ms. or Ł s 200.000 m/ms had to be paid by him next day. On the same day in the evening applicant went to the priest and said to him he wanted to break the engagement he did not tell us the priest that the reason was that he discovered that the respondent’s age was more than his by one year. Applicant stated that on November 15,1959 after they left the carpenter’s shop and went to the respondent’s house he discovered from a conversation between Respondent and her brother Alfi who was a boy of 15 that her age was more then was stated in the engagement document this statement appears to be false as it was not supported by any evidence other than that of applicant’s, and I believe that the court or my self is entitled to believe that the applicant discovered that the marriage would be two expensive and in any way it would  not be marriage of convenience. Having decided to break it, he will be liable to damages.

I think the amount of damages found by the province Judge is in all the circumstances reasonable as in my view wuch an amount, viz. Ł500.000 m/ms, is just adeqate.

Application is summarily dismissed
 

* Court : M. A. Abu Rannat C.J