In
the action instituted in the
Supreme Court of the Colony of
the Gambia, out of which this
appeal arises, the appellant was
sued by the respondent for a
declaration that an agreement
dated the 19th June, 1925, in so
far as it affected the
appellant's personal liability
for the unpaid part of a
judgment debt of £7,920 9s. 0d.,
was null and void, and for a
further declaration that the
appellant was still indebted to
the respondent in the sum of
£4,420 9s. Od., the amount of
such unpaid part.
On the 21st May, 1927, judgment
was given in favour of the
appellant, the action being
dismissed with costs. On a
counterclaim, with which this
appeal is not concerned, the
appellant succeeded.
An appeal was taken by the
respondent against the judgment
in the action, but not against
the judgment on the
counterclaim, to the 'West
African Court of Appeal sitting
at Sierra Leone.
On the 20th March, 1930, the
Court of Appeal set aside the
judgment of the Court below and
judgment was entered for the
respondent for the declarations
sought.
On the 6th June, 19=30, the
appellant obtained leave to
appeal to His Majesty in
Council.
Both parties to the action are
Syrians resident in the Colony
of the Gambia, and the action
was launched ill the
circumstances next detailed.
On the 6th June, 1925, the
respondent obtained in an action
in the Supreme Court of that
Colony against· the appellant a
judgment for the sum of £7,920
9s. Od. and costs and for an
account to be taken of any
moneys due from the appellant to
him in respect of the estate of
one Antoine Khoury (deceased),
of which the appellant was
administrator.
The appellant being dissatisfied
with the judgment, obtained
conditional leave to appeal
Two days after the
judgment the respondent sued out
a writ of
fieri facias
against the appellant in
execution of the judgment, Lord
and a large quantity of ground
nuts in the appellant's
possession Tomlin. Was seized by
the Sheriff.
Negotiations between the parties
followed, as the result of which
the Sheriff was withdrawn and a
document, dated the 19th June,
1925, drawn up by a Mr. Roberts,
the respondent's solicitor, was
signed by the appellant and
respondent.
This document, omitting formal
parts, was in the following
terms: -
" Whereas there is now depending
an action in the Supreme Court
of the Colon~' of the Gambia at
the suit of Michael Abdallah
against Sarkis l\iadi in which
said action judgment was on the
6th day of June, 1925, given
against the said Sarkis Madi for
the sum of £7,920 9s. Od. and
costs and by the said judgment
it was ordered that an account
be taken of the estate of
Antoine Khoury (deceased). And
whereas at the request of the
said Sarkis Madi to the said
Michael Abdallah it has been
agreed that upon the said Sarkis
Madi paying the said Michael
Abdallah the sum of £3,500 and
assigning the amount now due
from Antoine Blain guaranteed by
Palmine Limited to the said
Sarkis Madi as Administrator of
the estate of the said Antoine
Khoury (deceased) and assigning
the amount now due from Mrs.
Pierre Vallantine to the said
Sarkis Madi as administrator of
the estate of the said Antoine
Khoury (deceased), and upon the
said Sarkis Madi executing a
deed of transfer of the mortgage
of Gabriel N' J.ie's property at
Hagan Street to the said Michael
Abdallah, the said Abdallah
hereby agrees to forego and
hereby releases his right and
title and to abandon execution.
of the said judgment and all
benefits accruing therefrom."
After the document had been
signed it was retained by Mr.
Roberts on behalf of the
respondent, apparently upon the
footing that it was to be handed
over to the appellant when he
had complied with the conditions
mentioned in the document.
'l'here was some conflict of
evidence as to what next
occurred, but having regard to
the view which their Lordships
take it is unnecessary to go
into that matter, and it is
enough to state the following
facts, which are not in dispute.
On Saturday, the 20th .June,
1925, the appellant and the
respondent and two relatives of
the appellant, namely, John Madi
and Samuel Madi and others, met
at Mr. Roberts' office. Mr.
Roberts was offered and there
was left with him (1) a cheque.
of .John Madi's for £] ,800,
drawn in favour of Mr. Roberts,
and certified by the bank as
good for that amount; (2) a sum
of £1,000, proceeds of a cheque
drawn by Samuel Madi on his own
banking account, and (;1) a
promil'!sory note of t he
appellant for £700.
On the same day Mr. Roberts
signed and handed to the
appellant a receipt in the
following terms:-
"Received from Sarkis Madi the
sum of £3,500 (Three thousand
five hundred pounds) as
follows:
Cheque No. 53/01584 for . |
£1,800 0 0 |
Notes, Currency |
1,000 0 0 |
Promissory Note due 24.6.25
|
700
0 0 |
..
on account of claim of
Abdallah
v.
Madi.
Dated 20th day of .Tune, 1925."
Mr. Roberts, however, did not
hand over to the appellant the
document of the 19th June, 1925.
On Monday, the 22nd June, 1925,
the parties met again at Mr.
Roberts' office, and the
appellant, having borrowed £700
elsewhere, paid it to Mr.
Roberts in satisfaction of his
promissory note for that amount
given to Mr. Roberts on the
previous Saturday.
In the course of the next few
days the appellant executed in
favour of the respondent the
assignments as transfer referred
to in the document of the 19th
June, 1925.
On the 30th June, 1H25, the sum
of £3,500 having been paid in
the manner already mentioned and
the assignments and transfer
having' been executed, Mr.
Roberts handed over to the
appellant the document of the
19th June, 1925.
'fhe writ in this action was
issued on the 11th May, 1926.
The statement of claim alleged
that the respondent had
withdrawn the Sheriff and agreed
to accept £3,500 in full
settlement of his debt on the
faith of representations by the
appellant, which were false, and
the respondent contended that
there had been no accord and
satisfaction in law as regards
the judgment debt, and that the
document of the 19th June, 1925,
was voidable on account. of
misrepresentation.
By the defence the appellant
denied the charge of
misrepresentation and alleged
by an amendment made by leave at
the trial after the evidence had
been taken, that the terms of
agreement. between the parties
(except. a promise by the
appellant to abandon the appeal)
were embodied in the document of
the 19th June, 1925.
The defence also contained a
paragraph in the following
terms: -
"In pursuance of the said
last-mentioned agreement"
(i.e.,
the document of the 19th June,
192'» " and on the 20th day of
June, 1925, one John Madi paid
to the plaintiff on behalf of
the defendant the sum of £1,800
Os. ad. by menns of a cheque
drawn by the said .John .Madi on
his (John Madi's) account with
the Colonial Bank at Bathurst,
the defendant on the same day
paid to the plaintiff the sum of
£1,000 Os. Od. in Currency Notes
and gave to the plaintiff
defendant's Promissory Notes for
£700 Os. Od., dated the 20th day
of June, 1925, and payable on
the 24th day of .June, 1925. The
said Cheque, Currency Notes and
Promissory Note respectively
were paid to the plaintiff at
the plaintiff's Solicitor's
office in Bathurst aforesaid and
they were accepted by the
plaintiff as the due performance
of the said Agreement and in
full satisfaction and discharge
of the said judgment debt of
£7,920 9s. Od. and costs. The
plaintiff then withdrew the
Sheriff and the defendant
abandoned his conditional leave
to appeal from the said judgment
or any portion thereof."
The learned trial ,Judge in his
judgment said there were two
issues, namely, (1) did the
appellant. make any
misrepresentation to the
respondent which induced the
latter to sign the document of
the 18th ,June, H)25, and (2)
was there any consideration
moving from the appellant to
support that document and render
it a valid contract?
On the first question the
finding of the trial .Judge was
in favour of the appellant, and
his finding in this respect was
affirmed by the Court of Appeal,
and no further appeal has been
taken on this head of the case.
On the second question the
learned Judge, in the course of
his judgment, said this:-
"I find as a fact, however, that
the plaintiff and defendant
entered into such agreement"
(meaning thereby the document of
the 19th June, 1925) "on the
understanding that the latter
would abandon his appeal, and
tl13t the plaintiff would not
have accepted the £3,500 in full
settlement of the judgment debt
except on the footing that the
plaintiff
(sic)
was giving up his right of
appeal. The facts that he had
taken steps to appeal, and had
obtained conditional leave to do
so, were perfectly well known to
the plaintiff and his legal
advisers all the time the
negotiations leading up to the
signing of the agreement were in
progress. I simply do not
believe any of them when they
severally assert that the
pending appeal, and its
abandonment, were never once
mentioned by the plaintiff
(.sic) during all the pleading,
recrimination, haggling and
threatening which preluded the
final arrangement. The defendant
is a clever man, and his right
of appeal was his one trump
card; I am very certain indeed
that he did not omit to play it
for all it was worth. Again, on
the question of the Colonial
Bank Cheque, No. 53/01584, for
£1,800, Mr. Ladepon Thomas and
Mr. Roberts have severally had
to eat their original and very
definite sworn statements and to
admit,. which they. previously
so strenuously denied, that the
receipt itself (Ex. M.A. 3) is a
true and not a false document,
and that Cheque No. 53/01584,
payable to Mr. Roberts himself"
(meaning thereby the cheque for
£1,800 provided by .John Madi)
"was tendered and accepted in
part payment of the £3,500 due
under the agreement. This
concludes the matter, at any
rate so far as J am concerned. I
hold that there was good
consideration moving from the
defendant to the plaintiff,
which supports the latter's
promise to forego the balance of
the judgment debt; and the claim
therefore fails and must be
dismissed with costs."
On the appeal the Chief Justice
(in whose judgment the other
.Judges of the Court concurred)
said:-
" The grounds of appeal which
were eventually argued before
this Court were as follows:-
1. To say that there was no
misrepresentation is in conflict
with the pleadings and even with
the defendant's evidence.
2. That the Court below was
wrong in admitting evidence
extrmsic to the agreement of the
19th June, 1925, and even if
such evidence was rightly
admitted, the said evidence does
not show a good consideration
moving from the defendant to the
plaintiff. "
After affirming the decision of
the trial Judge on the issue of
misrepresentation, the learned
Chief Justice held that the
document of the 19th June,
1925, did not on the face of it
show consideration moving from
the appellant. His view was that
the provision with reference to
the assignment of debts and the
transfer of a mortgage had
nothing to do with the agreement
as to the settlement of the
personal debt, and for the
purposes of the appeal under
consideration could be
disregarded, and therefore that
the principle of the decision in
Cumber
v.
Wane,
1 Strange 426, applied.
The Chief Justice further held
that the evidence did not
warrant the conclusion of the
trial Judge that the appellant
undertook to abandon his appeal,
and in any case that the
deficiency of the document of
the 19th June, 1925, could not
be supplied by parole evidence.
The appeal was therefore
allowed.
The appellant before their
Lordship's Board contended:-
:First, that the document of the
19th, June, 1925, on the face of
it showed Consideration
sufficient to take the case out
of the principle of
Cumber
v.
Wane,
in as much as the release of the
debt was only to be given as
well upon the appellant
assigning the debts and
transferring the mortgage
respectively mentioned in the
documents as upon his paying
£3,500.
Secondly, that upon the true
construction of the document
regarded in the light of the
circumstances in which it was
signed an obligation on the part
of the appellant to abandon his
appeal ought to be implied, and
accordingly that there was
sufficient consideration.
Thirdly, that the certified
cheque for £1,800 produced by
John Ma1:li was given to the
respondent., or alternatively
that the amount of that cheque
and the money provided by Samuel
Madi was lent to the appellant
by John Madi and Samuel Madi
upon the faith of the
respondent's promise to release
the whole debt and that the
principle of
Cumber
v. Wane
had therefore no application.
Their Lordships are of opinion
that the document of the 19th
June, 1925, constituted an offer
capable of acceptance within a
reasonable time by fulfilment of
the conditions mentioned in the
document, nameiy,
payment to the respondent. of
£3,500 and assignment and
transfer to him of the debts and
mortgage, and that these
conditions having been in fact
fulfilled within a fortnight of
the signing of the document,
there was a valid contract
constituted binding the
respondent and debarring him
from proceeding in any respect
upon his judgment.
Their Lordships think that it is
impossible to treat the
assignments and transfer as
matters that have no relation to
the judgment debt and to ignore
them so far as that debt is
concerned. The obligation of the
respondent arose only upon
fulfilment of all the conditions
and upon such fulfilment there
was an obligation on the
respondent to release and
abandon all his right and title
under the judgment, and not
merely to release his judgment
debt. N or, in the absence of
any allegation or evidence
directed to the point, is it, in
their Lordships' opinion, to be
inferred that the appellant was
as administrator guilty of any
impropriety in entering into the
arrangement.
This view of the matter renders
it unnecessary for their
Lordships to pass an opinion
upon any of the of the matters
of law or fact. debated before
them and entitles the appellant
to succeed.
This litigation has been
proceeding for an·
unconscionable time, and their
Lordships have not been afforded
any explanation of this fact.
They cannot part with the case
without calling attention once
more to the importance of
expedition in the administration
of justice and the necessity for
eliminating causes of delay.
The appeal must succeed. '!'he
order of the Appeal Court should
be discharged and the judgment
of the trial Judge should be
restored, the respondent paying
the costs here and below.
Their Lordships will humbly
advise His Majesty accordingly.
|