RELIMINARY JUD COUNCl 16TH OCTOBER 1936.
1936
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
- LORD MAUGHAM LORD SALVESEN. SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Evidence Law
- Contract Law
1936
WEST AFRICAN COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This preliminary judgment of the Privy Council, delivered on 16 October 1936, arises from an appeal against the West African Court of Appeal’s decision setting aside a judgment of the Divisional Court at Cape Coast Castle. The underlying action was brought by the United African Company, Limited, against its long‑serving agent, Taylor, alleging negligence and breach of contractual duties under a written agreement dated 30 July 1933, including responsibility under clause 3 for deficiencies in goods and moneys at the factory. Although the plaintiffs claimed losses of £7,816, their pleadings alleged no fraud or embezzlement. At trial, two convicted employees—cashier Henry Reginald Horner Acquah and book‑keeper Thomas Akyiremansa Carr—were called and sought to implicate Taylor in taking the money. The Privy Council emphasizes the cardinal procedural rule that fraud, and a fortiori felony, must be specifically pleaded and holds the trial judge erred in admitting and treating such evidence, and in recalling the plaintiffs’ manager, Mr. Bray, to elicit his belief, which was irrelevant. The case should have proceeded solely on negligence as pleaded.
PRELIMINARY JUDGMENT OF THE PRIVY COUNClL, DELIVERED THE 16TH OCTOBER 1936
This appeal has taken a somewhat unfortunate course. It is an appeal from a judgment of the West African Court of Appeal setting aside a judgment of the Divisional Court sitting at Cape Coast Castle. The action was one by the United African Company, limited, the respondents in the appeal, against a person who had been employed as agent for them for some years, based upon his negligence in carrying out his duties under a written contract, dated 30th July, 1933, that is, his breach of his contractual liabilities under that contract, and it also was based to some extent upon the fact that under clause 3 of the written contract he was responsible for any deficiency as regards goods and moneys received at the factory of which he was in charge, due directly or indirectly to his act, neglect, or default. There is absolutely nothing in the statement of claim, which was amended in due course on an application by the defendant, which suggested any sort of fraud on the part of the agent, the defendant; a fortiori there was no suggestion that the moneys which the plaintiffs alleged had been lost, amounting to the sum of £7,816, had been lost owing to the circumstance that the defendant had feloniously taken it or any part of it, or that he had embezzled the money in any way, When the case came on for trial before the learned judge of first instance, two persons were called who had been servants of the branch of which the defendant was in charge, one of them being Henry Reginald Horner Acquah and the other Thomas Akyiremansa Carr; the first was the cashier, and the second was the book-keeper employed at the branch in question, Both these men were brought up in custody. They were serving terms of imprisonment, having been convicted ultimately on their own confession of falsifying the books of the branch and of other wrongful acts in connection with their duties. When they were
. in the box, they having been called on behalf of the plaintiffs in order to establish the case of negligence against the defendant, it appeared that each of them was desirous of testifying that the moneys, or the greater part of the moneys in question, had been taken by the defendant himself or had been given to him by the witness Acquah. Part of their evidence Was proper and relevant, evidence led to justify the charge of negligence, but that part. of their evidence which suggested that the defendant had himself taken