(COURT OF APPEAL)

AHMED ABDEL RAHIM OMER v. EL MARDI ABDEL GADIR

AC-REV-209- 1958

Principles

·  Agency—Conflict of interest between agent and principal—A gent duty to make full disclosure

In an action by the registered owner of a piece of land, claiming recovery of possession from his former agent whose authority had been revoked, the agent’s defence that he held the land not as agent of the plaintiff, but as assignee of a lease from a third party is not sufficient, since his duty to his principal was to make full disclosure.

Judgment

 Advocates: Mirghani El Nasri and Gaafar Osman for applicant

M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. July 2, 1959 is an application for revision against the order of the Province Judge, Northern province, dismissing summarily an application by the defendant against the decree of the District Judge, Merowe, ordering the defendant to deliver possession of three kirats, four sahams to the plaintiff.

The facts were fully set out in the judgment of the District Judge. The plaintiff is the registered owner of four kirats, twelve sahams in Sagia No. 9 Mansourkutti. In 1945 the plaintiff made defendant his agent by a Written authority. For some reason or other the plaintiff revoked that authority in 1953 and appointed another person as his agent.

After the hearing, the District Judge ordered that the defendant should deliver part of the land to the plaintiff. The defendant claimed that he was cultivating part of the land not as agent of the plaintiff but as an assignee of a lease which was in the possession of one Mohamed El Hassan Abdel Salam. The evidence given by Mohamed El Hassan Abdel Salam shows that he had delivered the land to the defendant in his capacity as agent of the plaintiff.

Even if defendant’s contention is true, the evidence does not show that he had made full disclosure to his principal.

Bowstead, Law of Agency, Art. at 90 (12th ed., Griew, 1959) states:

“No agent is permitted to enter, as such, into any transaction in which he has a personal interest in conflict with his duty to his principal, unless the principal, with a full knowledge of all the material circumstances, and of the exact nature and extent of the agent’s interest, consent. Where any transaction is entered into in violation of this rule, the principal, when the circumstances come to his knowledge, may repudiate the transaction, or may affirm it and recover from the agent any profit made by him in respect thereof.”

The evidence before the court does not show that the defendant made full disclosure of the facts, and the plaintiff was therefore entitled to repudiate the transaction. The same principle applies to the alleged partnership between the defendant and Sid Ahmed Ismail.

I need not repeat the principles of the law of agency, which were fully stated by the learned District Judge.

In my view the District Judge was right in ordering the defendant to deliver the uncultivable part of the land which amounted to three kirats, four sahams, and I dismiss this application summarily.

ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

AHMED ABDEL RAHIM OMER v. EL MARDI ABDEL GADIR

[Back]

Case No.:

AC-REV-209- 1958

Court:

Court of Appeal

Issue No.:

1964

Principles

·  Agency—Conflict of interest between agent and principal—A gent duty to make full disclosure

In an action by the registered owner of a piece of land, claiming recovery of possession from his former agent whose authority had been revoked, the agent’s defence that he held the land not as agent of the plaintiff, but as assignee of a lease from a third party is not sufficient, since his duty to his principal was to make full disclosure.

Judgment

)COURT OF APPEAL(

AHMED ABDEL RAHIM OMER v. EL MARDI ABDEL GADIR

AC-REV-209- 1958

Advocates: Mirghani El Nasri and Gaafar Osman for applicant

M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. July 2, 1959 is an application for revision against the order of the Province Judge, Northern province, dismissing summarily an application by the defendant against the decree of the District Judge, Merowe, ordering the defendant to deliver possession of three kirats, four sahams to the plaintiff.

The facts were fully set out in the judgment of the District Judge. The plaintiff is the registered owner of four kirats, twelve sahams in Sagia No. 9 Mansourkutti. In 1945 the plaintiff made defendant his agent by a Written authority. For some reason or other the plaintiff revoked that authority in 1953 and appointed another person as his agent.

After the hearing, the District Judge ordered that the defendant should deliver part of the land to the plaintiff. The defendant claimed that he was cultivating part of the land not as agent of the plaintiff but as an assignee of a lease which was in the possession of one Mohamed El Hassan Abdel Salam. The evidence given by Mohamed El Hassan Abdel Salam shows that he had delivered the land to the defendant in his capacity as agent of the plaintiff.

Even if defendant’s contention is true, the evidence does not show that he had made full disclosure to his principal.

Bowstead, Law of Agency, Art. at 90 (12th ed., Griew, 1959) states:

“No agent is permitted to enter, as such, into any transaction in which he has a personal interest in conflict with his duty to his principal, unless the principal, with a full knowledge of all the material circumstances, and of the exact nature and extent of the agent’s interest, consent. Where any transaction is entered into in violation of this rule, the principal, when the circumstances come to his knowledge, may repudiate the transaction, or may affirm it and recover from the agent any profit made by him in respect thereof.”

The evidence before the court does not show that the defendant made full disclosure of the facts, and the plaintiff was therefore entitled to repudiate the transaction. The same principle applies to the alleged partnership between the defendant and Sid Ahmed Ismail.

I need not repeat the principles of the law of agency, which were fully stated by the learned District Judge.

In my view the District Judge was right in ordering the defendant to deliver the uncultivable part of the land which amounted to three kirats, four sahams, and I dismiss this application summarily.

ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

AHMED ABDEL RAHIM OMER v. EL MARDI ABDEL GADIR

[Back]

Case No.:

AC-REV-209- 1958

Court:

Court of Appeal

Issue No.:

1964

Principles

·  Agency—Conflict of interest between agent and principal—A gent duty to make full disclosure

In an action by the registered owner of a piece of land, claiming recovery of possession from his former agent whose authority had been revoked, the agent’s defence that he held the land not as agent of the plaintiff, but as assignee of a lease from a third party is not sufficient, since his duty to his principal was to make full disclosure.

Judgment

)COURT OF APPEAL(

AHMED ABDEL RAHIM OMER v. EL MARDI ABDEL GADIR

AC-REV-209- 1958

Advocates: Mirghani El Nasri and Gaafar Osman for applicant

M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. July 2, 1959 is an application for revision against the order of the Province Judge, Northern province, dismissing summarily an application by the defendant against the decree of the District Judge, Merowe, ordering the defendant to deliver possession of three kirats, four sahams to the plaintiff.

The facts were fully set out in the judgment of the District Judge. The plaintiff is the registered owner of four kirats, twelve sahams in Sagia No. 9 Mansourkutti. In 1945 the plaintiff made defendant his agent by a Written authority. For some reason or other the plaintiff revoked that authority in 1953 and appointed another person as his agent.

After the hearing, the District Judge ordered that the defendant should deliver part of the land to the plaintiff. The defendant claimed that he was cultivating part of the land not as agent of the plaintiff but as an assignee of a lease which was in the possession of one Mohamed El Hassan Abdel Salam. The evidence given by Mohamed El Hassan Abdel Salam shows that he had delivered the land to the defendant in his capacity as agent of the plaintiff.

Even if defendant’s contention is true, the evidence does not show that he had made full disclosure to his principal.

Bowstead, Law of Agency, Art. at 90 (12th ed., Griew, 1959) states:

“No agent is permitted to enter, as such, into any transaction in which he has a personal interest in conflict with his duty to his principal, unless the principal, with a full knowledge of all the material circumstances, and of the exact nature and extent of the agent’s interest, consent. Where any transaction is entered into in violation of this rule, the principal, when the circumstances come to his knowledge, may repudiate the transaction, or may affirm it and recover from the agent any profit made by him in respect thereof.”

The evidence before the court does not show that the defendant made full disclosure of the facts, and the plaintiff was therefore entitled to repudiate the transaction. The same principle applies to the alleged partnership between the defendant and Sid Ahmed Ismail.

I need not repeat the principles of the law of agency, which were fully stated by the learned District Judge.

In my view the District Judge was right in ordering the defendant to deliver the uncultivable part of the land which amounted to three kirats, four sahams, and I dismiss this application summarily.