Appeal Court, 14th Nov., 1940.
Claim for commission on cash
sales made with approval of the
Agent.
Held: The Plaintiff-Appellant's
agreement cannot be construed so
as to entitle him to commission
on all cash sales, but only on
those made with the approval of
the Agent.
The facts are fully set out in
the judgment.
E.
O. Asaf1t-Adjaye (with
him A. S. E. Brown) for
Plaintiff Appellantt.
F Hutton-Mills
for Defendants-Respondents.
The following joint judgment was
delivered :-
KINGDON, C.J .. NIGERIA,
PETRIDES, c.]., GOLD COAST AND
GRAHAM PAUL, c.]., SIERRA LEONE.
Unfortunately in this case the
learned Trial Judge, though
delivering an oral judgment
lasting three-quarters of an
hour, has placed upon record no
findings of fact and no reaSOn3
for his decision. In the result
this appeal has taken up an
unnecessarily large amount of
the time of this Court. It is
always a help to this Court when
a Trial Judge records his
findings of fact and the reasons
for his decision, however
shortly. Having heard Counsel on
both sides we are satisfied that
the judgment of the Court below
was right for two reasons. The
first is that the plaintiff
failed to prove 0 any cash sales
made by him with the approval of
the Company's Agent, except the
single one in respect of which
he has been credited with
commission. Upon this point we
cannot agree with the contention
made on behalf of the appellant
that the passage in Clause 1~3of
the Agreement between the
parties :--
"On Cash Sales made by the
employee a commission at the
rate of With the approval of the
Agent of the Company
- 11/2
per cen .
must be construed so as to
entitle the plaintiff to
commission upon a]] cash sales
made by the Company from the
wholesale store upon a Store
Requisition Order. To entitle
him to commission on a cash sale
the plaintiff has got to show
that that particular sale was
made by him with the approval of
the Agent. The second reason is
that we consider that the
plaintiff cannot now be heard to
dispute the correctness of the
basis upon which his commission
account with the Company was
calculated, since on the 30th
September, 1938, he signed that
account as correct, although by
consent the correctness of the
calculation of the one item in
that account has been gone into
and it has been found that the
figure shown therein should be
l0s. 10d. instead of 4s. 1d