(COURT OF APPEAL) ABUL ELA AND AHMED ABDEL KARIM v. STROG EXPORT AC-REV-285-1964 | The Judiciary - Republic of Sudan

Principles

· Negotiable Instruments—Consideration for promissory note—Nature of—Need not be proved unless lack of consideration or fraud, duress or illegality is pleaded Bills of Exchange Ordinance, 1917, s. 29

In an action on a promissory note, consideration is presumed under Bills (If Exchange Ordinance, 1917, s. 29, and the nature of it need not be proved except where lack of consideration or fraud, duress or illegality is pleaded.

Judgment

Advocates: Abdulla El Hassan …for applicant

Abdel Rahman Yousif …for respondent

M. A. Hassib J. May 7, 1964, HC-REV-471-1963: —This is an application from an order made by District Judge, High Court, Khartoum, dated June 2, 1963, directing the applicants to disclose the nature of the consideration given in respect of certain promissory notes sued on as a distinct cause of action in HC-CS-364-1963.

The learned District Judge reasoned his decision as follows.

“I am of opinion that the discovery of the consideration in the sense of its nature only is sometimes vital. For instance, a party may have two or three dealings inter se, one deal concerning the sale of a car and another for the sale of commodities. I believe the defendant will be entitled to know which is which.”

By Civil Justice Ordinance, 1929, s. 55, the plaintiff is required to disclose a complete cause of action but not to accommodate the defendant’s convenience. Under Bills of Exchange Ordinance, 1917, s. 29, consideration is presumed and the presumption is rebuttable only if affected by fraud, duress, force and fear or illegality.

In the present case the presentation of the promissory notes constitutes a complete cause of action irrespective of the original transaction. The plaintiff therefore is under no obligation whatsoever to make further discovery or disclosure unless and until fraud, duress or illegality are pleaded.

This application therefore is allowed with costs and the order of the District Judge dated June 2, 1963, is hereby cancelled.

Babiker Awadalla J. (by authority of the Chief Justice). August 26, 1964: —This application, having been referred to me for disposal under Civil Justice Ordinance, s. 176, is hereby summarily dismissed.

The decision of the honourable judge of the High Court is no doubt correct. If applicants can avail themselves of the plea that no consideration was given by respondent for the notes or that the consideration was tainted with fraud or illegality, they have to say so.

Principles

· Negotiable Instruments—Consideration for promissory note—Nature of—Need not be proved unless lack of consideration or fraud, duress or illegality is pleaded Bills of Exchange Ordinance, 1917, s. 29

In an action on a promissory note, consideration is presumed under Bills (If Exchange Ordinance, 1917, s. 29, and the nature of it need not be proved except where lack of consideration or fraud, duress or illegality is pleaded.

Judgment

Advocates: Abdulla El Hassan …for applicant

Abdel Rahman Yousif …for respondent

M. A. Hassib J. May 7, 1964, HC-REV-471-1963: —This is an application from an order made by District Judge, High Court, Khartoum, dated June 2, 1963, directing the applicants to disclose the nature of the consideration given in respect of certain promissory notes sued on as a distinct cause of action in HC-CS-364-1963.

The learned District Judge reasoned his decision as follows.

“I am of opinion that the discovery of the consideration in the sense of its nature only is sometimes vital. For instance, a party may have two or three dealings inter se, one deal concerning the sale of a car and another for the sale of commodities. I believe the defendant will be entitled to know which is which.”

By Civil Justice Ordinance, 1929, s. 55, the plaintiff is required to disclose a complete cause of action but not to accommodate the defendant’s convenience. Under Bills of Exchange Ordinance, 1917, s. 29, consideration is presumed and the presumption is rebuttable only if affected by fraud, duress, force and fear or illegality.

In the present case the presentation of the promissory notes constitutes a complete cause of action irrespective of the original transaction. The plaintiff therefore is under no obligation whatsoever to make further discovery or disclosure unless and until fraud, duress or illegality are pleaded.

This application therefore is allowed with costs and the order of the District Judge dated June 2, 1963, is hereby cancelled.

Babiker Awadalla J. (by authority of the Chief Justice). August 26, 1964: —This application, having been referred to me for disposal under Civil Justice Ordinance, s. 176, is hereby summarily dismissed.

The decision of the honourable judge of the High Court is no doubt correct. If applicants can avail themselves of the plea that no consideration was given by respondent for the notes or that the consideration was tainted with fraud or illegality, they have to say so.

Principles

· Negotiable Instruments—Consideration for promissory note—Nature of—Need not be proved unless lack of consideration or fraud, duress or illegality is pleaded Bills of Exchange Ordinance, 1917, s. 29

In an action on a promissory note, consideration is presumed under Bills (If Exchange Ordinance, 1917, s. 29, and the nature of it need not be proved except where lack of consideration or fraud, duress or illegality is pleaded.

Judgment

Advocates: Abdulla El Hassan …for applicant

Abdel Rahman Yousif …for respondent

M. A. Hassib J. May 7, 1964, HC-REV-471-1963: —This is an application from an order made by District Judge, High Court, Khartoum, dated June 2, 1963, directing the applicants to disclose the nature of the consideration given in respect of certain promissory notes sued on as a distinct cause of action in HC-CS-364-1963.

The learned District Judge reasoned his decision as follows.

“I am of opinion that the discovery of the consideration in the sense of its nature only is sometimes vital. For instance, a party may have two or three dealings inter se, one deal concerning the sale of a car and another for the sale of commodities. I believe the defendant will be entitled to know which is which.”

By Civil Justice Ordinance, 1929, s. 55, the plaintiff is required to disclose a complete cause of action but not to accommodate the defendant’s convenience. Under Bills of Exchange Ordinance, 1917, s. 29, consideration is presumed and the presumption is rebuttable only if affected by fraud, duress, force and fear or illegality.

In the present case the presentation of the promissory notes constitutes a complete cause of action irrespective of the original transaction. The plaintiff therefore is under no obligation whatsoever to make further discovery or disclosure unless and until fraud, duress or illegality are pleaded.

This application therefore is allowed with costs and the order of the District Judge dated June 2, 1963, is hereby cancelled.

Babiker Awadalla J. (by authority of the Chief Justice). August 26, 1964: —This application, having been referred to me for disposal under Civil Justice Ordinance, s. 176, is hereby summarily dismissed.

The decision of the honourable judge of the High Court is no doubt correct. If applicants can avail themselves of the plea that no consideration was given by respondent for the notes or that the consideration was tainted with fraud or illegality, they have to say so.