Agency-Wages-Basis of remuneration for services rendered in abse";;e of em-
ployer

Quantum Meruit-Wages-Basis of remuneration for services rendered in ab-
sence' of employer

In the absence of appellants, heirs of the deceased, the Sudan Planta-
tion Syndicate appointed the respondent to complete the work of picking
the cotton of deceased's hawasha, which he did. The respondent then
claimed he was entitled to a half share in the ultimate profits and the
province judge upheld his claim. The Court of Appeal held that the plain-
tiff's remuneration should not be assessed in terms of a share, in .the profits,
which would imply a partnership relation, but instead the basis -should be

• Court: Owen, J., Hamilton-Grierson and Halford JJ.

quantum meruit; i.e., the plaintiff should be entitled to the customary w8les
of one in such a position.

Appeal

Owen J.: This appeal lias been heard in the absence of both
parties to it. The appellants have not been served with notice of the
day of hearing and the respondent says he is too poor to attend. The
facts are simple. Mohammed Ahmed El Makki died on February
3rd, '1926, leaving hawasha No. 15 Belula Canal to his heirs who are

        the present appellants.                                                                                            .

, At. the time of his death his heirs were absent and the deceased
had picked only 11 sacks of cotton. In these circumstances the Sudan
Plantations Syndicate's Inspector, in order to prevent loss, appointed
Mohammed El BeUal, the respondent, to complete the work of picking.
This he did and worked on the hawasha, so it is said, for 144 days and
picked 43 bags.

He then claimed before the Province Judge' a declaration that
he was entitled to a half share in the ultimate profits. The learned
, Judge upheld his claim and gave him the declaration he prayed.

Clearly he is entitled to remuneration for the work he did, but
such remuneration cannot be assessed in terms of a share in the profits.
There is no partnership, and no question of partnership arises, The '
respondent was appointed to carry on the work of picking and was in
the position of a manager of the hawasha on behalf of the appellant,
and it is on this basis that his remuneration should be assessed. It is
a quantum meruit and is independent of ultimate profit or loss on the hawasha.                           

He is entitled to be paid a reasonable sum, as manager, for work
and labour done on behalf of those who would prima facie be entitled,
to stand in the shoes of the deceased, namely his heirs.

This is purely a question of evidence. Such evidence should be
directed to a consideration of the current customary rate of wages, the
expenditure involved and the responsibility borne by such a manager
as the respondent was. Where necessary-and in this case I suggest
it might be advisable--a board might be appointed to consider the
matter. In any .event it is the duty of the court finally to assess the
value of the respondent's' work in terms of the actual sum of money
payable to him by the appellants, not, as I have said, in terms of a.
share in the profits.