Contract-Tenancy-Rents-,Cwuse allowing nori-payment .of rent during clo&u,e
of suq- Whether Gopemrnent restriction of sale and movement of' caUls
constitutes partial closing,

In this action for suq rents due to Government, defendant admitted
his liability but contended that he was entitled to a reduction because of

.Iosses sustained over a period when the Government had restricted sale
and movement of cattle in the suq as a protection against infectious disease.
Although the suq had not been closed, defendant argued that the re-
striction constituted a partia] closing within the terms of his contract with
plaintiff, which allowed for non-payment of rent during periods of
closure, and that, therefore, he was entitled to a proportionate reduction,

Held: The .restriction having, reduced sales in the suq, it amounted
to a partial closing, land defendant was, .therefore, entitled to a proportion-
ate reduction of rents.

Appeal

April 15, 1914. Wasey Sterry, C.J.: In -this case the Governor
of the Blue Nile Province is suing Ibrahim Yusi( as principal debtor
and his \ co-defendants as sureties in respect of different items for the
following amounts:

In respect of market fees:
at Managil

at Suk El Halawin

In respect of ferries:

                              Hassaheisa                                                                lOO.625

                              El Hemirat                                                                  30.750

As regards the amounts claimed' in respect of Suq El ' Halawin
market and EI Hemirat ferry, there is no dispute and the defendant
, admits his liability.

As regards Managil market and Hassaheisa ferry,' the defendant
'- admits the accuracy of the figures but argues that for certain'reasons
be is not liable at all or entitled to a reduction.

·Court: Wasey Sterry, C.J.As regards Managil market, he alleges that he is entitled to a
reduction of £E8 a month oil the ground of the loss he sustained
by the suq being closed to cattle dealing owing to cattle plague, and
he relies on clause 10 of 'his contract, which says: "The Governor
can close any suq or slaughtering place temporarily which is included
under this contract for the purpose of preventing spread in infectious
diseases among animals provided he notifies he contractor or his
agent in writing. The Governor will not be responsible for any loss
or damage caused by this to the contractor but the contractor will
not pay the amount of' his' rent for the period during which the suq
has been closed."

It is admitted that the suq was not closed to all sales of cattle
or other animals, but the movement of cattle having been restricted
into and out of the district in consequence of cattle plague for the'
space of 4 2/3 months, the defendant argues that this was a partial
closing in effect, for which he is entitled to a proportionate reduction
of rent. This plea has been so far admitted, though without any
admission of liability, that a sum of _£E6.720 m zrns has been paid
to the defendant in respect .of the loss which he may be supposed to
have suffered. If the order made as to movements of cattle comes
within this paragraph, undoubtedly the contractor is entitled to SOlVe
relief from payment of rent.

In my opinion it does, and further, on the evidence that has
been furnished to me by the administrative authorities, since the
hearing of the action, as to the method in which this sum of £E6.720'
m/rns was arrived at, it seems to me a very inadequate allowance,
and I shall declare that in mv opinion the defendant is entitled to a
further allowance of £S20.000 -in this respect.

Now as regards the question of the Hassaheisa Ferry, the defend-
ant alleges that his rights have been infringed by the Government
allowing other persons to take goods and passengers from Hassaheisa
direct to Rufaa, and in support of his allegation refers to a ruling
of Mr. Corbyn given two years ago in favor of another contractor to
the same effect, and says that it was on the footing of his having a
monopoly from Hassaheisa to Rufaa that he made his contract.

I am not satisfied that at the time he made this contract he knew
anything about the ruling of Mr. Corbyn, and if he did, it was
obviously his duty to have it made clear in the contract which he
signed. Nor can I assent to the defendant's contention that the trans-