NA TZCA Dar es Salaam4 2

· I \ IN. THE COURT Op APPEAL OF TANZANIA

AT DAR ES SALAAM (CORA : Makarne 1 J.Ao 1 Kisanga 1 J.A. and Om~r, J.A. ·) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 29 OF 1988

BETWEEN ESMA L INTERNATIONAL LIMITED • o 0 .C O • ·• • • • . • APPELLANT AND 1. • S. KASIDI .

2. I /S L. J. RIKARDS & COMPANY LTD.) • • o 0 RESPONDENTS (Appeal from the Decision of the High court of T_anzania at Dar es Salaam) ( Bahati, J. ). dated thP. 1.st day of August, 1988 in Civil Case NO. 271 Of 1987 JUDGf-11.ENT Op THE COURT NGA J .A.: This appeal arises from the judgment of the .High Court ati, J.) dismissing with costs a claim by the appellant an an order claiming for damages arising from itd being de rived of that ship. In this appeµl the appellant was re resented by Mr. M. Rutashobya and Dr. N. Lamwai, while th first respondent was represented by Mr. L. T. Kalunga, an the second rP.spOndent was represented by Mr. M. Raithatha. The facts of the case are not quite so simple and straight ward, bu_;t .in so far as can be ascertained from the record, may ·be sqmmarised briefly as follows: •••. /2 •. .. 2 I Fol owing a court order in High Court Civil Case No. 74 of I 198 , the first respondent, a court brOkP.r, advertised for sale the ship known as M/V Se~ Transport. The ship had been attach~d bP.c use its · owner had failed to pay the ·wages for the mf~mbers of · ts crew. The sale was advertised in the ·Daily New5._, a 1 al-newspaper, and also in the Lloyd's List of London, a p which advertises speci;1lly for t}:1e sale of sea in the World. i The adv.ettisement set out, inter alia, the fOllOwing conditio6s: ( 1) That thP. ves·sel was being offered for sale on "as

is where is" br1sis; ( 2) Each bid was to be accompanied by earn12st money deposit of 1,000 UoS. dollars payable by bank draft and to _reach the first respondent before 12.00 hours On 11th December, 1987; I (3) The successful bidder was to pay the balance of the purchase price in U.S. dOllars within 21 days of the acceptance of the Offer by the first respondent; I (4) The first respondent was not bound to accept any Offer and might reject any dffer without ~ssigning any reasons .the~eto. The sale was advertise,<l twice. On the first occasion thP.re I t-J;:is no n~sponst=:. On the s0cond there were two bidders only, I nam.ly, th~ appellant ,and the second respondent, both foreign liability comJanies incorporated in England. The ap llant company wns acting throuqh its own Managing Director I .1) who happened t'o be in O;;ir es Sal-:1am at the material I , while the second respondent company was acting through i cal company called MOH1-\MED ENTERPRISES. Th~ .secund ondent had specifically appointed Mohamed Enb~rprises • I I by etter (Exhibit D.11) to handl., the mntter on its behalf. 3 Tht..? ppellant t0ndered tor::· t_he ship at 11s·,oo'b u .. s. dollars_ whi sl:!?ccnd' r('spoJdent tendereci ot 113.500 u.s. ciOllars. t,s befor<:, . thej:d~ad linP. f0r receivin,<J tenders was at 1 mid 11~12.87. T e second appellant•s bid appe~rs to hav. been submitted i][.• time but ka~ not

accompi:lnied by earn~st mun y depcsit of 1 7 000 U.S. dollars as requi_re<l by th,., adv rtisement. Such d posit Wi:!S SEmt only :3ubsequently I t an<i was received on 1~-12 .. 87, that is, one day after the clo ing day for the nJeiving of tenders and on the v0.ry" day r the hmders were opener•. Following the opening of the tenciers I, . on 2.12 .87, the first re·spondent declared the appellant th~; successful bidder lf the ship un<l on the sam(~ day asked him to pick the lett,~r[of offC"r on 14.12.87. On the same <lay of 2.12087, the nppeliant incurrect expenses upto shs. 42,000/~ to uy an<l instal a wa~er pump in the ship and to pay for the l out nee .ss~ry labour to puyip water from the ship. Then on 14.12.87, the appellant kept'· . .the r.1ppointment ' end wc~nt to thr-! officel of th•.? first respondP.nt for detailed inf rrnation following ·1s successful bhiding for th,,~ ship. 11 HO; >ver, tho letter Cortaining t.oe terms .and conditions of cceptance was not. ili''~t typed, and so thP. first respondent -, I • d him to wait for ~ t to be t:.yped but he s.=dd he w;,s in a hurry. eupon th<?. first re·spondent read out to him th·2 ri_r;,ft ainii\g six con<lit+ns and he accepted them and furth,,r is~d to p:i'.ck th~ lf tter at noon that day. Th<~ letter ; (Ex il;>it P4). ~eads as follows: • e • •. /4 4 .. "EXHIBIT P4 LJ'iiPALA ENTE~JUSES P. O. Jx 4783 - Phone 30720 - 42468 .

rar P.S Salaam Our Ref. JBK/rS/87 M/~ ESMAIL INfERN;\TIONAL LTD. P. . o. Box 7065, I DAR ES SALAAT'i• D<=?.!r Sir, J RE: MV SE/\ ,,MNSPORT I I am pl,~ase<i Ito infurm y•.)u that y:,ur offer for the purchost~ 0f thr::.: above vessel datP.rl ·. 10th December, 1987, has bGJn accepted· on the following terms ::md conrli tions:-1 (1) That yo will within_ 48 hours from th~ <iate hr•reof Jive a performonce bond satisfactory to my bJnkers whose ;,irlrircss is shown below. (2) ReceiptlI of the balance of US.$ 114,000.00.by . bank•?.rs draft or telegrc1phic _transfer within 21 days from thri rlate h,=?reof. 1 (3) The adrt~~ss of thH bankers mentiunAd in i paragra,h (1) abov~ is:- NATIOi'JATh BANK OF COMMERCE, TwIGA B~/\NCH, P.O. Btx 70198, D1\R ES $ALii1ir·l. I - TELEX N(p~ 41018, OR 41209 Ni\TCOMEX. ACCOUNT NO.: I (4) The xdrift should b0. made payable to R~gistrar High coirt i\/C JviV SEA TRJ\NSPORT. (5) Deliveri uf thc-; vessel wil.l be mat:le to you upun confirmftion by ml? that all purchAse money has ·been fully pflid. _ 0 (6) All cosls of maintaining the above vessel will I • be debited to your Account effect>ive from this •i'it,~. further ielays. . ·, Please arran!e to take delivery of th~ vessel without Thanking_ ~~ul Yours f~ithf~liy, Jo B. KASIDII . COUf{T BROKER. ' •. - .• /5 5 C.C. ~egistrar Of High Court, P. O. Bix 9004, DAR ES $AL,\AM. Tcinzanil. C.C. T-1/S KALTJ!GA &

CO., I , i\dvoci'ltes, Dar.·P.s Si:!laam •.H. At the same time, th" t r s t respondent, upon request hy the ap ellant, issued a nlte or gata pass (Exhibit P.3) horising the Port lo1ice b.> allow the appellant i:lccess on t-:, th. ship, as e21rliP.r 1 .n thfl first ·responi:tent had instructed th Port l:'Olic;e nut t 1 allow any one 1Jn to the ship except I " l wi h his written permission. That notP. rea<is: EXHIBIT P.3 ATTA, HMENT 0ROElt/IilV0IC£ M/S E!3hAIL AlDUL SULTAN Vi/S Ismail ls the successful buyer Of rvv SEA TRJtNSPO.'.{i' Plei'lsc i'lllow him to inspect his vessel as from now. Letter follows. Signed (J.

3. KnSIDI) C0urt Broker & Public Auctioneer~~- The appelh,nt did not return to the first responclPnt' s ,)ffice at ·m_idclay. that clay tc collect the letter of th0 Terms ,md c-.:•n·:li ti-J:.1~ promised; :nor ct icl he do so subsequently. This caused th~ first re· ponrlent·to look fol him on 17.12.87, but ~ithout success. HO ever, he succeeded to have Exhihit P.4 commun.icated to th8 6 appe lant on 18.12.87, thruugh Mr. Kalunga, A,Jvocr.ite, who W"!S rlvi~ing in the matL~r.· Then on 19.12.87, the appe lant went to th~ flrst respowlent's office hot and ,mgr .:1nn picked up n qlart;'<.~l with him. Tht~ suurce cf thf~ quar el wr1s that durin) a visit . t<, the ship ;)n 17.12.87, the ppellant c1sk.:irl the crew to start the ship's •· c-mgi .~ for him hut the rew refusect sayi·ng that that c~)uld thr1t the appellrmt W".!S n')W r.sking why tho?. first r,~sp<mdent was ut ·all0\1j_ng the c f~W to start the engine fer him. The irst responr\,mt, Jowe,ver, replit"!d that the ship was bei1 sulc:J on "as is ,,Jere is" basis, an~ when he inaintainerl thi I stanrl the appellar shterl .that h-, was cancelling th,~ bid, after which h ~ wc-mt away angrily. Whereupon the I fir t re spcn,:len t ,;n th, same <lc1y wrote (Exhibit P. 5) t<J the High court an1, in effect, notified the RP.gistrnr the appellant harl failed tu comply with the terms conditions of thr:? ale, th".lt he hnd withdrnwn from

the bid and that h•~ was nol cancelling the appelL:mt' s offer <1warding ~:,, th<l! bid tG tht:1 sc,•cund respondent, the nP.xt hig est bidder. He t() k Exhibit F.5 pers<)nally tc thE~ Reg strar and briAf~d him on what harl tr3nspirGd during th<::? appellc•nt' s visit [L hi~ office. The lcttc,r (Exhibit P.5) ivas <iuly_ copi<!rl to the appellant. As statAd earlier, the app•llant n~ver rrJtW nerl to th\:.'! first responrlent's ·uffice, and indeed the twu saw ,:ach other again only in court on 2.1 88, in cunnection ith ·these proceedings. FOllowing the deci ion on 19.12.87~ tc aw~rd the bict t0 th~ seconcl responrlent, th£~ first respcmctent c,-,ntactAri the sec nd respondent C')mp{rnY whlch s.::iirl- thi3t it w;:is still 7 inter. stnrt in th~ ship. Whereupon h0 0n 21.12~87, sent ta the s(~con,. respon<lent a 1,~tt r of r1.cceptance containing h.,rms and c >ndi Hons simiL,r tl these uf E:xhib.i t P .4 · {>Jhich th,: secon respundent ncceptL-J on the foll,)wing day. 'On thA same day t e first r~sponaent r0ceived a telex from th~ appellant confi mipg th!:! 0 ccept.-rnc •? ,Jf his offer by the first respondent an<i p ,...:.mising tu :3rrange payment frJr th!:'! ship. The first ··.f res po dt?nt' s case, there 1 >rt>, was th;,t he cancelled the appel ant's bid because the appellant failed to provirte a per ormance bun-i as renuired under th~= terms :'ln<i c•:>nditi•Jns of th_

acceptance and also because the appellant hart withdrawn the apnellant' s c<mbmtiuns wen~ four fcl,.i: Jl Firs y; he clairnert that he bid for the ship on the basis of the c'mditions as scet ·+ by th,., first respundent in his ,'l-:lv,: ti sement for h~nder.s in ·which thf~r'°' was no cc,nd!tion a ·perfc,rmance bond. Secuncily, thG b~rms and c•.,nd"tiuns as contain1,,j in Exhibit P.4, were c:~•mmunic:ated to h · monly belatedly ol 18.12.87, th•~reby making it impractic,'!.Olc to ct mply with the t0•m which require<i him to furnish a perf:')rmr1nc2 bond within 48 hcurs fr •m 14.12.

87. Thirrlly, the qur-:stion •Jf p rfc,rmance bond <iid not aris~? ;:inyway beca11se the appellant had , epcsiterl the 1,000 U.S. dOllars which Wi'lS the same as i'I perf rm_ance b,)nr.l. Anct ourthly, in any casP. tht':! soid terms - I - and unctitions of Exhibit P.4 including thatvf performance - .I WP.re wr":-ngful, useless vr illegal inasmuchas -. . thP.y W\cre ontaine<l. in the a<lterti5-,rr,ent. for tenders on which the sale ased; anrl tha.t beii:19. the case tht?n~ was nu need t~> respon'i hibit P.4 ih pro·oet·t-imP ,1,,. .,.-1- ~,, _,,, __ ·• . I ppellant C':>ncluded th."\t he was nut iri br~ach of any thnt h<:! h,-:,d withc':rawn flr . .·m th(? bid as claime<l by the other side. Thus th•'= sr1lf, t th,~ secund rPspond.ent was wr•:.::ngful ·an<l a:• ..·nsequently h•' su ght a declaration th;,t he wns the I lr1w ul buy<1r cf th,'! ship anr'l then~f'Jre clc=iimt~<l damagf~S ;:it he rate cf 1,000 u13. riOllars per ctay,. being 1oss of expect~"\ e~r ing s fr·)m 10.1. 88 tc thP. · dritr-! of judgment; ano a further inc nvc-miences which ,, Wi'IS put t,.;. At the hearing of thf' suit, two is;ues were fram,~<i and agr-ed upon by th,, pa ,ties, namely, whether the c1ppellan_t wa . in I . t in b reac h o f th e . aon t rr1c . .f ai· 1'ing t o f urnis . h a bunc\ .,nd secon1ly whethP.r the i:3.ppellant pe 0 wi· hdrew from the birl. ThP trial judgP. answer;-d b<. th qu. stions in

thP affilmr.tive. He alsc• considered c'!nd r,~ject,~1 I. an allegati<.m on hAhcilf of the appell,mt that th,~ captain of the vessel in question _had blackmaile'.l a member of the er. w into moking a f,,1..5e entry in the~ ship's log huc::•k hibit D.10) tu the effect thc1t tlh<'! 21ppellant h,vl ~P.mandect have the ship's ,<:ngin•' starb.~rl .::rn(1 th~t wh0.n this wc;is userl he stab,d thalt ho n , ·1unqer ~anterl the ship. TM trial Ju~ge trld that f-:•llowing the i'lppellant' s of_ the condi t:ilon uf contract nnd the subsequent wi thrl.r.3wF.1.l .,the first respvnde,nt Wr!S enti th\d to treat t e contract i'!S at a encl and tr) sell the ship tv th<i-' secunrl r spondent. as he did. . 9 ounsel fvr the appellant filed a total of six groun<ls The first br) grounds cent"·r<~d on challenging cf c;.;mplainto ,It the trial judge's finding tllnt the appellant W7S in brea•h .r,. of c,ntract by fai1ing t:J pruduce i'l picrformance bvnd. Ela nrating c,n this 9round, counsel for the appelli=int str·ngly cuntender1 that thP. requirement of performance hon was never R b::rm uf th2 c<,ntract. According to the lE,a ned couns~l, th 0 contract wns concluded on the basis .)f he terms and conditions as s<·t out in the ar3vertisement for tencters on the une h;m<l, ,.,,nr' th,o appellant's d~:5punse th,~ et0 on thf~ other. That advertisement, howevPr, ctid n<:,t sAt out perfc,rmance bon(1 as

un<'> of the terms and concti tions of the contract. That conditi'>n wns communicated tu thP. arr ellant cnly subs0.qu"'ntly afh!r he h;,d suhmittect his te <ler. counsel stressed that the terms and cunctitions i'l.S spfocifie<l in the adverti s• ·m8nt for tenders w,ere absolute 0 an_ unqualified; th~y cuuld nut be mudifiect subsequently. so that tu the extent thn t th,., re,uirement c;f a performance ')0 d Wns cummunicated only subsequently as shown, such requir•~r,n 1t er cun(ii ticn was of no consequPnce; anct th•~refore by 0_i regarcting it, the appellant 1'11.,s not in breach of a te~rn cf contract. In suppcrt 0f that cunt,':ntion coun.sel r;'"ferred tu the English cas<'= of Gre-:it Northen Railway v. With0m 73) LR 9 C.1'. 16 - 29 L. T.

471. In that case the cc,mpany ha actvertised for tenders fur the supply of cE~rtain gooct~. 'I'h defendant s0nt in his tender which the Company :-<'•cepted. Th. cumpany then prcc,--r~de<i tc oroer goods wh1ch thA defend-,n t su nlier1 for sometime but later 1-·· refused to supply any mure. , •••.• /10 t ~·' · I: 1 th ,., defendant was bound to $Upp y e go~1s It Wn held that the .1: vk cannot quit•! see how this which thE-: cc,mpany ha.d or~lerect. I: ctecis un cissists the app~llant' s c,1se h•,:re. We shc1ll revert - 1: perhaps pertment t:1 tll t c11.s0 later f•.ir t:he 1, m"m<!nt it is I' to pc-int out at th•~ V"'.i!y <,utsct th,1t the first responrlent' s tisement was nu m(1re than nn invi ~ation tu treat. s "'3n invitation a,J 1 1 ressed t: I the whOl<~ world asking . buV,'.rs tu com~ forword an~ contract with the first , J II h h. . t· P t ndent for the purc\c:ise of t c s ip in ques icn. ursuan e ndvertisf'ment thfl ar,pell,,nt s,mt in his tE'nner, or uffer, the first resp' mrl.~nt acc<~pt<:<'l. Thus the contract between - Ir . I th,~ ppellant and th<-: flrst n~spowlent Wns concluderl. on the of the appellant'l:s tender er offPr un· th(~ une honrl. anrl i . 11 tho irst respon•ant's rccaptance of it on th• othar. so at it is not cor.n~ct bJ S?.Y, <'IS ccunsel for the appellant i,I hnVc strongly contenr1P.d, thr.t the c,_intract be-b,veen th,! partL"s II was aonclurled

merely oJ the basis of the advertisement. lj F<.>r, the 'ac1vertis1-'mentl!i'\S such dir\ not cn,ate or imp<...'S'! .=my 1' bin- in<l Gblig;sti,m ,Jn ~ny onr~, \nit the ensuing· ,tender c1nr1 its i; a.cc ptance clirl. I 'I /1.s incticated earlibr, cGuns<'"!l fvr the appPllc:,nt havP. ols, I /! mni tain0.ct very strong[Ly that 11hc, r<iquirements uf performance • • I bun 1, <1S set Gut in thl~ first r<?spondent' s lr~tter of acceptance II P.4), wa~ of iro consequence bec,oUSe it was not sti],ul:1t,~l • f . 1 1 t wc1s communicated t:_:, thi::: arpellant in ·1· I , I ~ubsequently. Trlat submission appears difficult to sustaino I . ,1 It is true th;:it the ~irst responrlent in his advertisement fo tenders did set ojtI or incticate 1.Q some c·-..1nditions which in ending bidders wer I' tu ccmply with, fur insti:lnce, that 1 ., pa , <"'nt was to be marlei in AmPrican ctollars, anrl thi'lt the b;,l 3nce ',j f th e purchase m'.Jneyi: hacl to he pain within 21 rii:lys~ But th1.t, 1: 11 t is ap]Jarent th?lt th•., n.7turc uf the contract between the parties was one w~ich inv0lvert prutractPrt negotiations which the partir::s made proposals and counter prcpos:1lso· Th~ binc',ing cummunicat~,Jn, er the f)inriing terms uf the contr:1ct wou rt haw, to be f0und in th 0 fini71 c10reement arriveci at by th.·.o 1 par ies after such negutiritir:.ns. In, 1 (~cd this view appears to . e burne out by

th\~ c Jn<luct _;•f the partL"s. In the first pla f7., the first rP.sprJnclent in his ;,r 1 vertis,~ment for tendE,rs stiled,, .inter ~1ia, that the i7CC~ptani~ ~f the offer woul~ be d'Jmmunicatf:rt t·~ th,,~ succr-:ssful ,_,ffercr thruuqh r1 b·lex, ful OvJP.ci by lotter uf occept0nce. If the: h,rms as set c,ut in he acivertisement were mi,int t,: be exhaustive thr:n it w,ul·l su~ ficerl. But the fact th c1.t i'l letter ,;,f acceptance was t,.J re, pondent on<i the particular biJner whus•= b:mder he had accepta lo te der t0 the appellnrit, and congratulating him en 12.12.87 1 he th n invited him b) his office t0 pick the l,etter of offer _;n 14 12.87, anrl rursui'i.nt t,_; th-1t the appP.lla nt tP.stifierl. that . 1 ,:,n 14012.87, he ,;ent 't0 thr: ,;.ffice Gf the first n~sp<>ndent bJ ha e full infurmatiu~ jbout his ·· ~successful birtrling for tha sh· p. That shows th;c,,t for the- purpuse of his c~)ntr"lct tu huy • •, ••• /12 12 I' ' '. \I, I the hip the appellEint f"xpectc~cl to rc,ce;ive further infurmnti.Jn I, . t ~ ht apr.1r t f·r1m - ·' th~t which WA.S s~t cut in f rum t h r;; f irs respun"e., , ,. I !j the /1 I hen th,':'n' w.as the j~vidr-mc(: thA.t un thE~ A.;•puinterJ date, 1 that is, 14.12.87, the l~irst rc•spon,l,ent reac out t,; the anpellant and niscussri'o with hir:i th'c terms an<'! ccndi tions L :1 ! ceptr.1nce ;,s cont~ined in Exhibit P.4 while still in

Jr3ft of r, I for, 1 and the aprellani agn~ecl ,I he id express his ctitlik<> •>f th<-~ c'>ndi tiu!'l th3t hr-· sh•.)uld ,I tak over th,J res:JOnsibility OV<'r th• shir' s cn°w. All ,. 1, thi is cleor evir1en!e of prutr,1ctnd n,,q•::tic1ticms. In the 11 lig t of such 0Yi~encelit w0ulri be unrralistic hav ng regarrl t., th,-:= n~ture of. th,~ ccntrr1ct thr, f)'clrties inb3ni2i, 'I I, er .v,-:n understc~Jct, thrit the cuntrc,c t ~hu,ilr\ J,0 c'-ncludr)d m 'r<:ly i c basis uf the te~ms A.S sr!t cut in th,: c,_r'v,':'rtis,-~ment I, 1; 11 1 Th,::, true p'.Jsition jos we see it is th:it the i'J( vertisem,2nt i ly set ,.,ut nc'vancJi or pn,limin.1ry ir.f :·rr:r,,o.ti,,n th,t \,ii"lS t'· ;y~ Ii ;on exch,rng,e uf communicr1tic;ns :lurin<J which th,, r,cirti =" I I tc try t::.: persuade e:10'.1 .)ther until thc,y eventuolly reach2•i !j . o(J.reement to llel enbc,',ier, in the~ cuntr'l.ct rl< cument. We can find nuthing t1 suggest that ~uring such n~gotiaticns th~ first respondent 1od t.; limit or r"strict his aco'2ptanco lj I i on' y tu thE: b:·rms 0nc1 conJ.itiuns spelt uut in his ndvertisRment 1 .I fc, tenckrs. vh, thinf th=it c~uring th;,t process, th<:~ first 'I re pondRnt was entitl~d t0 intrort0~e, as hi! did, in his l· J I ,::r,_ft terms uf nccep~ance, the requirement of a perfurmance 'I I . i,., rl .,nc\ it was upfm ~,; the i'lprielJant tn accept or ri-:ject it. I In, eed i'lS i

t was thf~ Wirst respondent cluly put thcit: condition I, t,, the appr-11ant an<i )the latter ncceptert ft nnrl p~umis~d Ii 11 ~• later en tu pi•l th• l conci ti<~ns r1s ?.gr;'ed t,) noint that th,· c,mtratt b·.,t\·:ccri th,~ pc1rties •.:J::-.s . I c,.,nvenient here t··· pcint vut thr1t J-Jr. Kalunga conclude. rt is nn''l. the irst respondent- Th<:~·· tri.=il jurlqe hN1 nc, difficulty .=it :ill entirr:,ly in agre,:~ment with hiM- Th£'i c<mtrrJCt csime int) and.we fiirst\rf:spln~lent r''ar\ uut t·-' th,.! app0.llan t and ' • !'!'. I C· .. discuss d with him· th,~ 0.raft b?rrns an0. cc-nciti'>ns l)f acc<~pt;nc8 ;incl the appell·at.It ,ae.::eptect tl:E:m, promising tG pie'·t the typed I . copy of that fucument late~ rting no1r1 tt, the 02se uf:,the Gr~a.t N'.:rth<~rn Rc1ilway cc•uns< 1, i t cioesjnut se:m tc., be 0 ,,f any mu«Ph .:,ssist,rnce. cited , that c?se, lik•! i. thf.'. pnisc•nt ,m<~, f•.•lluwing .=in ~ :'\,:vert· sement for tenc1,ers fJ supply guocts, c-1 cunti.·Act WnS subs(~g ent litigation the offeror w,1s held lii1blc tu supt;ly th-,.) s. ;·-ply t,:; thr-!othr::-r si,1 e. But th,.., c.::ise goods is n(1 Ji0w, ~anvassect f0r th0 nppellr1nt in the instant ,· case, th,:1t tht-· ccntr;ict is conclud_e(l ffi(!rt,~ly · on the be.sis c_,f thf, adve tisc·ment for tenders or 'lthat a mr1th,r \tJhich was not l'!~de i'l tE:,r in the r1civertis1~ment for tenrlers canno

subsequ.,ntly be iLlud<d in th,, terms onrl conditi"ns r.:•f ac eptr1nce c,f an offel ne~tri ting frc,m th,~.t r1dvertisement. counsel' I <'l further attempt, tu urge the point, f-:,r t e appellc1nt relied (JD sectiwn 7 (2.) of the LciW Of contract Ordi r1nce (Cap •. 433) w ich provi2es thnt in o.rcler to· c~mvert •.••• /14 a nrc1pc al intc, a pr< 1nis<.,,: th-2 i'icceptanc,? must :w ;ibsulute =in:i I I unquali ierl. It s"~ms, hi~ever, that th~t prcvisiun is heinJ riisappl eel. tc the fc1cts uf this case. 1 F"r, the first rPspon•i·.~nt \·r:.s not sh'-' m ,-•to have v:irierl br moc~ified his ciCc(•ptance after I he react it tu and <liscussetl ! i t with th,"' a;:,p,1lant . ancl thr· appellon'.:. agreed hereto. What he mi)clifierl Wi1S his i'\<'.Vf:rtisement for i tenders by adding thereto :the requirement of a p0rf0Ymc1nce I I bond. ut t~ arlvArtisum~nt was not Rn acceptnnce anct therefore i t coul .. not he the suhjedt uf thr rule un:er sGction 7(a) It as further submittterl fur the ap!.1ell2nt th;cit even I c1 ssumin for the sake of a'-,rgument th at the perfurmance bond ! Weis a t..-rm uf the contract ;cinrl th At the ar pell.=int Wi3S in bro.nch !, of it, the> first respC.ncier\t could nut seek r,.•m0., 1 y hy reselling the sh· hecause the prope.rty in the ship h.A,'· already passed 1. t<> the appellant sn thc1t the first respcmr1ent n<.; luncwr ha:4 titl2 1 in the ship

which h,, cuul,j pass to a subsequent huyPr. At I that S age, C'-lJnsPl c<,nt0nf.er!, the first rt~s;-,cn,iPnt as an i unpai~ seller was rple0ati~ only t0 p~rsuna1 action against tl2:e apr ellant. For this: suhmi.ssic,n we wer<' •<: :ferreci t;, twc.i i Jecisi ns uf the Hioh cuu~t in the cases of Boniface Kagaruki er v. I:Jrisa R,maclr:iani (1981) TLR 103 anc1 Hari tr, SaiJ :'?< Brothe s Limi tecl v. 11arti~ s/u No<)u (1981) TLH 327. In "j'' both Ccses the question p<>seri v:ns whether in c1 cuntract fur I I. 5ale 0 g'-'ocl s, prupcrty in! 1the q•.,uds - pass,')cl t(, the buyer e seller voluntari}y r1eliven",j or tronsferrP.<i puss~!ssion tu the buyr~r. In buth cahr,s the answfir wris in the affirmative,

I I I with t e rr:, sul t th ,:it in BOnif ace' s c r1 se i t Wi'l s h(-clrl that in such c rumsnbrnces the unpoid. seller cuuld rightly h<)l,i the 11 ••••• /15 15 •huyer to the contract of s:,l•-: of some 13,500 !,ricks tc, rec,:Jv,,!r the- n ce uf the pu·,.ch ~ "' ,'S" · 1-.,,,1 , 1c. 1-,rJ.' ce , 2,.nd in H.=i_.ri th• s c:ase an•i pass guur1 ti tlP t<; ;, subs(~quent 1,uyc-,r, his ';nly ri?me·1y of the resent cnse the same? Dir: the nr·..,perty in the ship pass tu he appellant rit thni time of the contr2.ct? Secti 'h 20 of the Sale of G<-'Ods Orrlin;;inc<,' (Cap. 214) in a cunt act of salE! picisses. Rel"vant t0 thE.; f,:icts 0f the present c .se iJre Rules 1 anrl V(2) whioh pr, vL-'e th2t: " O. Unless a r:-lifferent intenticn appears, the Ollowing are rules fur ascertaininq the!. AA-tehti<ln f the parties as ts thP time at swhich the pruperty ·n the• 9uccJs is t,·; pas~ tu the buyer:- ule 1 • ...:. Wh•.-!n-, thcire is an uncunl."1,i tional c:• •ntract 0r th~ sale of specific goods, in a 0.elivcr3hle sb-ite, the property in the 9coc1.s puss,,s t .• the b i.yer when the ccntract is mude, ;in,~ it is irnmnterial ethe.ir the time o_f r,ayment er thE:, time l,f .•;r.•livPry both be pustponecl.'. 'V. \I •J 't (2) Where, in pursuanc,2 of theo, C:)ntract, t eseller r'elivers the gou(]s to th\:, buyer ur t,, a c, rricr or Gther baj_lE~e or a;.istGdi,:,r (wh,~th(~r ne.m,,!d b the

buyer or nut) fer the purpc•se uf tr;,n.smissi •n t< the buy0r, 1nrl cto~s nut r0serve the right lf rlisp,sJl, h is ci<,(cmer' tu hav,,, unc'mdi tic-nally appropriated th2 q eds tu the contract.". F,.Jr thEi ,,p, ellant i t was cc:ntended thc'l.t i t was an. unc(Jnd;i.t.l,onal contract w·thin thl~ meaninq c...·f Rules 1 .,nrl V(2) as rcprc,rluced a:,.1v2 nnd that th. necessary int~nti0n was evidenced by Exhibit P3, th,! first rf:spurrl<'!nt tu en.".lble the appelLmt t•· go un bt·,rct th,., ship. On- fur the fir t respon~ent that the contents of Exhibit P3 did nJt c:.,nsti-bute eliviiry of th(, ~hip tG th,~ appellant within the ..•••• • /16 1- 16 of Rule V (2). Iti wil 1 he recalled that th•" cper,-:,ti ve 1 'I 11 p'irt o E;xhibit P3 rea,ls ~s f•.,11•.jws:~ J~ 11 i M/S Esm:-, il is successful buyPr uf M/V ~'.Ei1 TR,-.l'~SP03.ro 1 Please allOvJ hirri1 tv insp('Ct his vessel c1s fr:,m nuw. Letter fullcws. i' (Siqnect) I 1: J. Ki,SIDI.". 1 '!'he f rst respondent stated in his evidence that th' n• tP. was tended merely . as r 11 1 g2te pass authcrising the port polic,:; • t T .. 1 ow the appellant aFcess t(; the ship c1n-1 inspect i • :-ns I· support in the F1 1pellant I' 1s c;w-n 8;,idence when h ~r1id th:1t :,n find 1 h(! went to th~ first rcesponc\ent tc have a lc,t t,~r 14.1 11 tu a . ow hlm t c go .,..,n t,L,,,e s h'1-p anr:.1 visi .. t th e s h.1-p l,ecause 1 the olice were n

1 ;t all~iwing him access- It finrls further supp ·rt in the first rel;sponr\ent is leth~r cf acceptance (Exhibit P rl) I at paragraph 5 whieh cJ:t0.gurically states that: 11 veusel wili he m."lc1.e tu you u,;'--n "Delivt,ry of tt{e me that all purchase m,,:;ney hr1s 1w . :n cunfirmativ.n iY fully pr1ic1.;". 1: 11 The e coul,1 hcive heen ho ,leliVE-!ry sin.-e th•" bc1lanf'.I~ uf the pure 1·1s2 \1 pri e was still unpaicir r/1<1in i t wc1s c-:m1;1c>n 9ruund tlv1-r -;,lth_;u]h th(>. first responcl~nt afil-lowcd the appell21nt tu go and insrect ! ,, the ship, he ,\id net Rll(>W him to haVP the 5hi'p' s en<Jine stE1rt2:io 1 11 I In ot1v,r worcts, tae of/pellc.int wc1s net in a pc•siti-·n to remuvo ,. <:r m<:,ve thEo vessel. i There ;1 \'<las evic1_ence also thr1t . ;=it th0 materi.=i.l ., ti e the ship was loa~ed vJi th hunc1rec1 s of tuns of ~alt which 'I I - }y) onged tu third por~ies. HC'W could th,, first rr,,spcndent 1; ha re cteliverP.<i the ihip to thE; appell."1nt without there heing 11 ?._ arrangements F.lbo~t the property un board helonging tu 11 t irct pnrties? Fina~ly, th •re w.ci.s the appellrint's cwn evidence 0 t at when, in the cv\\lrse cf discussion 21nn n0.gotiaticms, he wc1.s 11 •••• /17 I I,, 17 rP.quir <l to t-9.ke ov1,r th,0; cr)sts of m::'linL:iining the ship incls.1 lin:J the re ponsihili ty ov,cr the crew f rum th(! ,'!ate of th,, ,cicc.,,;,t"i'1C ., , in al

this which wuuld indicai::0. thr1t th,? f:i.rst n,spc;n·ient inbm eci th?.t property in thE, ship should pass tc• the ?ippellr1nt at th time of the contrac to In fact, nl 1 the inc1ic21tiuns were to th contrarya we therefore~ find that prop~rty in the shi;, t•.) th· appellant; bCth pussnssicn an,l property remnined in th·, selle -, that ::.:c-,, the fj_rst n,s1 vn(lent, an.ct tha.t clistii-.guish•~s the ase from the twc c3.sef; cib::d hy ccunsel on this pC.'int. h(:, trial judge heln; rightly in uur view, that the requ rE" ment of n performance bon-.:'t 0 1r1a s fl term uf the contr,,c t. He a su fc:und that that b'::rm wos (luly communicAtP.d tL the npre le-nt verhally, when the C('ntei-,ts of Exhihi t P4 were r,,'1.'.1 1 q,r c and rliscusserl with the aVi'ell:J.nt, 3d the a' pell;,int ,,, 0 s c1ncied to the appellant. Thnt fin·1j_ng i.s quite justifi,d ,.,r eit c;Jm unicatec1 to him tnc 1,elateclly :::;uc:h c1s ctid mc.ke it : • iliiprac·i:idable al nc•tect, his defence in this appeal is th..:t thnt concliti,)n wa uf nu consPque,,ce; ln3s:nur:::has it vJus n<Jt mncle part of the cunditions set '-'lrt in the orivertisement fvr tenders .. 1: I' 8 1- I' 1 ;'.?}.:i:\~ ,.. -. ), ear1'ier tM lrarned ' trial judge held that failure< . ',;, a =rfOrmance l\und constituted a breach of o'>ntnct tr 1: wric}; nti.ti'ed the first basponrlent t·> rescind the conbsact aTid to resell the

shiP, I In su\lport thereof he cite<' i.,ns n 0 on t'h .Law of Contnict ~4th Edition, and in seeking t·., hc,ve ' ' ' ' 1: ' ; . that ' J,ew affirmed counse,l fc•r the respondents during this appc.cl • ,', • I . ' . ' ' 1: . ·. referred us t<> sO.ction 39 of the Law of contract . !: . .Or'di ance (CaP• 433) and £Eenjamin'£ sale ofG<>Ods 3rd ' on. paragraphs 1207:r.1nd I , 1774. s atisfied thot they fully ·:?,µpport thP- 1 ences an<l we are ly the i,,arned judge; we can find nc usiOn arrived .at I Grounds 3 anO 4 of: the mem<>candum of appeal seek tG I oh 1enge the trial J'udg<e' s finding that the appellant w1. h..,orew f rem th e h.10. 1: T h e comp 1 amt . however 1s . w1. thou t .,, I ju tificaticn. There:i was ample fL.dinq. - There wc1s the I e.vic1ence of the first res,...,_.onctent , t' the effect that fc,UcwinQ tne rcw which t>,e apcellant c . used in his (firj re s,-cn:'.en t' s) ,,ff ice, the appellant s ated that he was ~anc~lling tM hid, after which he alketl away an9rilY:1' anO never came back- In his defence, I he appellant totally deniect this hut the trial judqe fter due evaluati+ of the ,-victence accepted th,, first tespondia!'t' s verss>Jn as true- c,.,unsel for the appellant I I urging us•to I reverse the trial juO.qe' s f·indinq anO t•' hOl<l that therei ws n- such withdrawal from the bid hy there W?.S nu row or quarr~~l be.tween the appellant an<l

,tha~ 1: I the appellant andl:the first respondent- The approach in· such \ mabters has always: t,een that an af>pellate court will be siO,,i,'l). \:.-. t,, interfering w · :th the finding cf the tria 1 court on the i ssJe iThe trial juOge who had .the a<lvantane bf seetng I ~ .. . /19 nf crec'.ibil i ty. -:\. 9 .. .. ,; Lln that on the tacts of each indivi<\ual case, but we coul<\ fi1d no str m, and co pening reason to warrant interference in tM instant oss• the first respondent's evidence was not the .only evidence trial judge based his decisi<>n as to the appellant' s on awal. There was the entry by o.W.2 in the ship's 100 book o the effect that the appellant, after his demand tu hava th" the hip- Both at the trial an<l in this appeal it was sub itted at s0ro'' 1endJbh on behalf of theo appen,nt that n.w 2 was t,lackmailed int" making that entry falselY• The trial Juctne C.uly ccnsic\ered that submission and f<mnd it t< Oe baseless, and we are satisfied that his reasons fer that vc,w were well founrled on the evidence, Then there was the ,,v c.ence of D,\/.3 which the trial juCge als'• acceptect t the witn,,ss that th" appellant whO was temperamental h d wi thcl,rawn the hi-1 b )\gain i t was contencl<!O'£<lr the appellant that if it is roe that the appellant had withdrawn his hi<l, •he first it was argueri, con sic erin'l that all a 1 ong the parties ct i<.1 c

,,rry withdrawal was marte an<\ acceptert only orallY· )(elying on section 100)1) of the tvi,\ence Act, couns<-1 further submitte\ •••• /20 I r .... 20 - that si ce the whOle tranjcti''n oetweerl the partieS had bGen cvnducLd in writing, thJ n,> ur al ,,v1,1ence was adm is sihle to m><\' fY the transacti"J AnY alleaaticn of withf,rawal must __ I be pr" ,,<', l,y written ev>"" nc e • section 100 ( 1) of the Evi<' enc,, "100. - (1) When tho turms of a cuntract, er of a grant, or Gf any otherj C,isP''siti'm of proPerty, heV~ bee~ re1u~< 1 tG the form of a docuu,ont, an" ,n all cases sn whsCh anY matter is requ~red by law tu h<' reduce,\ tu the form yf a docu,-ent, no,~viclence shall be ryiven in pruof uf the terms ,,,, sUch c>,ntract, orant or other disposition of property, or of such mc,Uc r except th• <'ocument it self, · ' er secunu,ry I • ' c1',c,ence ,, f, l. t s cun t ,m t s sn . cases sn . wh.,c h secondary evi0 ence is ,,,,missible unCer the prwisions 1 herEd.. nbefurc ccntoinec\.". I 0,ue resp,,ct t'> the lcarne<', c',>,,,nsel, we think that the secti'>a is <>t applicable hHJ. The secti<>n is talking of pr,,vin9 the te ms of ccnfract. .lat is tc, say wnere the terms »f the co tract hc,ve been t,,,\uce>l t>, .>citina th<sn any terms of such - c> ntract must be proved, l either »Y the c>>ntract cooument ' self·or b\' secon<lah evidence of its c<,ntents whae such ,ec•miarY

evidence lt ,,cmissihl"· instant h~, :, ,rtif., s in the 0 l. t is »nether or n l tM appellaht renc,unc~<l, or repudiated the contract after he had duly ccnclu>>ecl ,t. Renunciation I or repuc\iati•m is a conduct which amounts to a necati•m of the such conduct, by its very natui~, can onlY contract itself. come ahout sometime after thB contract MS heen concluded. I. cs such on<a cannot reascmably envisace t)oe pr' ,,f of such conduct I to be by the contract aocument or by secon,Jary evidence of its -•c'--1ntents. • .... / 21 l . ,... .. ~2i};·r;··1:·.:_j . i~·lb¼~~.tI·[ 0 tl.:·r:·.:~::~),attf~1'.it~;fti{~·w:s· ··t•,,.~ 1 , alsc.~ ·st.lg es'ted ·,.th~t 'si~CE' .the· 1~arties hi'id c0,rictt.fo:te<i the tr.,,ns"lcti.Jn. 1> '~ ' . • • • • ·, • • ;,: ·i-n wri t:i,. g, · then the first 1 0,spunctent shuu1rl. hnVP. requiren the appe lant to put in wri finn, • the alleged nmunciation -:;r repu01ia : on. We c,m find nlt basis for that vit~w. · If the par.ty cares to co m.unicate in wr.~ting his repu<1iation . I .. . . to the uth,r party, thr1t•1swell anrl good. But I. of '.<l.n oral repudiJti(m woulr'. equally. suffice and· we .. . . can sE:1e reason for _jlnsi-sting on pro;_.f of it by wri tt.=:n ,fr strenuous . en<1j.vour to show that the appellant did net w· thdraw frcm the liid, co1.,.1ns0.l for thP. appellant that the .•appenJt had incurred expenses .to put the· hip in proper_

c<Jdition, fur it:1stance, by buying n water p mp nnd fi ttin0 i t on tu th,! ship and by employing labour to pump out the water from the~ ship. Such conduct, co~nsel a gued, could not be consistent with the appellnnt's a:.:ipellant did all thFJt at f: rst h'h•.:n all was well; fur he touk I. t.he pump ' o the ship . . en I 12 ~ f2· 87. Subsl~quently, however, he ohan9e his mind f(,lJ.owini the refusal on 17.12.87 . I of his de nnd to have th.e ship's . I engine started. I Presl:i ng thP. argument still further c<.>unsel contended I that the ~pellant did,nut r~mand back the pump, which shows that. he d · d n<,t wi thctr;;iw frlm the hid <'IS a1.10.90.d. But ther-~ · · was evide th;:it su soon after thE:, appellant• s repudic:iti,-,n · en 19. 12. his brother (P • 1" 3) in tervcnen by tel ephcne from L0nctcm on 23 . .... 12 ...87, asking . tlie I first respunclent tu re-instate i the appel ant's offer. There:\ was evidence alsu that before huned the first r+,»on<lent, he had been iO toUch with ,··the a pel:'l:anti. It: is mrr5t likely thnt when thf~· appellcrnt -. -,--mnicat ~d wi·:•:h P. W. 3 hr? J-jrif:,fed him Ln 1.,h:ar hr-. h .... ,., -' · •· . I •. -t 22 t P.W.3 di cuuraged him from pursuing th<~ repudia:tiun to its logical onciush,n ,1nd instiad advised him to firid ways of restorin the stc1tus quo. I . . . Rut once thR first respuh(1ent . had acte 0n su~h re•pudi~tir~.

a~d. resc.inded the, contract,. as he ri ,htly did, thr,n i t rc!s 1mmater1a;I. that. the appellant :::ubseque tly channNi his mind. Bc~caus(~ an·y such·• ehange uf mind hy hP.· . apfJe) lcmt cl not revi v-e the ccin tract. 's counsel thr.t the first· responcteht caused lant tc bel1.1~ve th~·ship was h~s, for example~ 'I I by permi ting him tu enter the ship and inspect it, to buy ·, a water ump and fit it on t0 the ship awl then to ...iallow him cur expenses t~> pu mp out the water frrJm··1,h·e··~hip, 1 all thi .. .! 1.11 c1n attempt to put b!le ship in proper conditicn, then - firzt res;.,vn·.",ent T't S . estopped fr--:m denying tne appellant owner~h · p <,f the ship. counsel citP.d sccti•~n 123 of the Evir\enc-'.:! /\ct in upp<,rt uf th;,t 2rnJnent. The? simpl<? nnswer her•!, how-=v~r, js thc1t that sub-~a--c1·~r:n :lulrl hnvc b(!"n relev:int if the appella t had n st sub sequc,t tl y rcepuctia ted the cun tract. We re satisfic~d thnt lhe trial ju,1,ge came to thP. right cunclu_s · on th'9t t.'le ,-:ipp,'!lll;int repudiated the c,Jntrnct ancl tha·t such re udiation enti tleri thr· first ·.re~·flcn,4ent to cancel ~)r r,1sc_inct the cuntract~ Tha conclusic.,n was well fuunc'erl 'b,.•th in fact an law •. Gro nr. 5 .allf!<::ies that he learned trial juc!ge faih!d to con side the issue of feau •- · whi·o11, though not pleadect, w;:,s 0 brought out suf~ic iently dlrinq the proce~dinlJs at ,the trial. In ·this ccrinection couns,~l mode repeated ref~nmces tu thr° Ci1S2 of-Odd Jqhs v •. _.Mubia (19 0) E.A.

476. We have to state at •-.met:! ••••• /23 J j 22 ft~~~;:'~ ~•::~-~~~?I~'.' . .,.·.'.~' l;,~,;.c~•.>-., . :i> . ,' .. . ., \ . · ·.; ,·<· ;.. ;. ': ---~:r•:(~;'.'"[r.·.,;:t?.:;~fP.w.·3 disc~_t.ifM'~d .him frum pursuing. th/? repudiation to its __._, __ ·... ,·_-· .. <. ·,-;.~ :.;, . a • , ·t',>'$;,.•·..,.~.:~,,:w.t~,1w··'•\ .. -. -~,--.•,,;'if.✓-,.,,;,_~-•;.-< ..•. 'j" :1,... . , -.~---·,,. .. . r,-,-,· , .....,.. ••·.,.•.. ..•. ·t~.:~.' :·:·-.:.A.~·::.. . ~ 0 c~n~l~ ~i ·1 ~~ct ins~ead advised him tv find ways c.;f the ~tatus quo.I nut ~nee th~ first r0spvndent h ::i d o lt.. on sue h rf:pu.di i'I 1.un anu resci,,"e:'-' ., . ., ., th c- cun t rac t , as he· igh-tly didt tiw·n :lit was ir,imateri?.l that the ~ppe) lant zub~_e ently_ chanc_i<->d his mind. Bc~caus(~ any such· o:ian<;e uf . ·..., min,., ·Hie··. appellant would not revive the contri"lct • ~ seiy: ·deinnected with this wns the suSmission hy-..11.'"IP.. :..• . . . .. . I . t,;;·,,,, ,,~..v~.ti.f~;(~~•z;ppe ,.11 nd~i.i~~i..thse1il.;:tha f:i7~~}S~~J.·•/-.>1;-~~,j~•~J~.jf~-, . ,,!_1;~-:..... 1 t''.\mcei-:':th'e:;:}= irst :..r~r.vA1'fv.ff •~·--~'t. :,Y:)',"·~~.~~~- ~·; · r;( .,~~1.i'v·-:-t,r.- ,. • Ju\ ""! • ft,~' -:,·'!".:.·l,;·r~,.~~~;•-~i=~~-: . - - ..•':"·~J.t,,.:··.- ~·;·.:- 1'" --~··►·• '?·'"/:- . . d·:~ 1 (- · the ap ~ell"ant tv believe t:i:=it the !9hip wn·s his, fur example, -r . ':.., <.'::\-'by pe .. }.

.~--.-: ,it:li~{J-hi~ to"''e:~t-er the - ,. I iliip . and inspecf' it, tu bl:,~~ . a wate ·pump and fit it on b-' the"" ship an<t then to ..1allow t, • . . ! '· ·him tci. ~ri<;:ur expenses f:, ,pump Out the water. fr ~m··ilhe~.!!!hip, 1 ft~::r .·,..-:-:..Jt \~:· ::,: · _·.-t:~i~t\::t::. · · ·.;:(" ._/ ·:H~irf•,. .. '\ti;.:.. (''.. -: · ;-,~\'.'_;·_. ,. ··all •th. s· in ·,'iln '.attemp·t.\to put· b;ie_-_i;sl)ip. iri propei'' cunditicnft~'iff&\ - . •-~-ls).> •. ,., ...,..,.. , ''" .. , ...,. . •. :'° ~. ·-,: •..' ''.,n'· ,,._.... . ...:-~ -..,~·r _:,;..! . .. . . "'· . I . . , ,. .:,., -·~:·f:.-~ ·• · · · then":''· \l1lJ.:~t respondent w~s ···~}~t~;ea·\r·~:::i.t<le.nyin1"· ~e · ci;p·;~ lant .,-. ~· ': ' .:t:~.:_ . . -.: ..., ! .'· ownel:'• ip _vf. the ship. Counsel citP.d secti,m 123 of the Evirl.enc~ ·.. ;.-..-.. 1· '. . •_,:;i,;f. . ..:· support·uf that nrgument. T.he simple r.1nswer herP., h<>Wev~r, I ... - . is that su!rsP.c_tion ,,,..._,,, 'have w0ul-<1"'l, .-• be-""n relevant ·. lf the '·•¥'" r.'C!.-l! · :1ppe_ll nt had n.::.t subs~uc•ntly rpr-ur,i:,t,~r\ th!> c::intract. . I . . ·we are \ati~fi~d th.F1tl the trial ju::~'/ cr1me t.0 the right ! ---- __ . :. . c0nclusiGn th~t ~e appel1ont repu~iate~ the cJntrnct ~n<l that . -~- l . such r pud.iatiun entitlerl thf.• first re:3p,;n--:ent t~ cancel ~Jr r,,scin. the cuntrc:!ct. Thlat conclusiln was well f·,,un(e<i :!):.•th

in .! _..;.....--,-~.----~-+-+-.,,,,,.,.,. ·-'.:, ·.·,:•'•>.'''' . .. . .,-,-:,-,-,---:.--;-,,.---:. ct➔¼' •~ _--:-.--,,-,--~----:,:;;j\}-. .:.:·:·•.': .• -.- .-..,.....-;-------:-_.;-,-:--: ··---~~--~~·... -~ ,. ~-1!::J'.'::.~-:•!~-*J~· . .-. : ~. : . -'-=--=-~~~ . ·. I ·•. I ,¥ Gr ur.r. 5 . 0 ll~ges th<1tl th<~ l~arned trial jud9e faih:d to c<.msic r the~ issue of feaurl · whi·ol-i, though not ple1:1rled; w;is 0 hruugh vut suffic iently hurino the pr<.,ce~dings nt _the trinl. In thi I cunnPcti0n cc•uns,"il mnde n~peatect re:fE>n•nces b..> th~~ c;,is2 r,f Odd Jvl">s v. Muhia ! (1970) £.1\, ,;76. We have tu state at Jnce ••••• /2 3 •' ._, . ' 23 tha this ~1rc.und is most flimsy and that th,.)s~ seeking tc, raise it 09m to have (l0~e s0 l~rgely by way of a fishing expertition. The, is:~ue of fraud· w<1_s no·t raised at all on the pl"nrlings. It was n1is0d fer th(; first time; an<:1 unly o_h1.iqu""ly, durinT / a p hearing when cotmsel for the secunct re~poncJent ha:l sou t to amend the name· of his client frum "L. J. RICHJ;.RDS" tv "L. J. RICKARDS" anrl counsel for the appellant, uhj:'::ctiri,;i· :e applicati vn, . irtvi ted the court to infer frc1ud from such pr,;1 J:;,:,rl chanqe ,>f name. Whereupon counsel for the first resp rn!ent str.1ted that the proposect amenrlment Wi'lS desi0neci m,freiy tu currect a spellinq misb,ke in the name of his client ,rnd th.:1t it w s n 1_;t

mcti v<1ted by any fr;:rnd. ' further that Observing fr2u. was a serious matter which c0~ld not h~ decided en a m,~re c. l legc,tion durinq a preliminnr.,y hearing, he subsequently cr,ul ,~nc;ed cuunsel for the i1ppellant tu raise fraud as an issu~ In its rulinJ r1.1 t e mntter the c,:urt hi~ld that the rruposerl amHndrnent dirt ::,e pellin<J mistn.ke in the name of the ·second rPspunr!ent; the ,,men,lment was accorninCJlY allowed. Then the proceedings entered ·the ext stc1qe cf framihq the issues hut fraud Wns nut. ma<ie nn i sue. Now, if fraud Wns really exercising the minds of the ppellat and his counsel, why was i t nut rr-iised in the plai t or made an is:::ue at the trial, especially after cc,unsel f'--'r he other side had thrown the challenqe on the appellant anci is counsel tu do sO? fter th,~ trial haf. cr,r,,mence(!, frauc1 was raised again, this time again in a very indirect way. The appellant's •••• /24 24 witness (P.Wo3) cvmpleted his evi·•1en,,,.,...:in-chief with<,ut sayi g anythinJ a,})<:,ut frauda In h~SWB.r t) a questi<.m in cruss- invd ve<l in the matte±. And after thP. qu,=sti(Jn wc1s raise:·l whet er frciuo can now he ma1e an issue when ft wc1s net raised in t e pleadi'ngs the .ccurt ruled that fr~~d was now an is~ue 0 it and permitted evidence tu be fed to prove it. The .. . . evidence a<louc0.d by the appelLmt on this puint c(..•nsisted uf •peatin<] th~~

aliegati(m mc>rle during the preliminary -' th!.'? change ·)_;: t,he seconr-1. respondent' s name -f r~-m tc- Riakarc'l s :invol v1:,rl froun in that it har', created Ric scm one who did nut exist~ It is significant that that evi'.ience was not given by the appelL,nt himsr-ilf who was -k~e principnl e appellant anrl. :l.t was hruught uut unly thr•..1u0h E1n 2rnswer c,f questiun put in cross-,,xaminc1ticn. If the arpcllant .-'ln~ t·U counsel 9enuinely thouCTht that thPre wns frnud, wculd th·~y wi E;:X mination? I Further suggestions were put tu thP. rE--'sp0ndents wi t~e ;;es in cros::;-examinati'-Jn tv the effect that. iiL. J. RICKi,RDS" .::n;-1 fi;:;it r1nd th""t s,)inc local hi,',oers were f.tc1udufontly using that in order tu squeeze uut the appellc1nt f~um th~ rleal. is all tha.t there wos regurdin'] the appellant's all~:gati,m T t ,:It " 1L. J. RI6i{ARDS" did not c~xist. But it Ls clear that· the ec-nclusiOn <.·f thf' evidence for both sides that s i l l remained a hare matter was r-ai serl riurinq the pn~liminary hearing W en th 25 . / ; • I ' L the t ial judrre ruled thc3t the change from L. J. RICHA~DS tu L. J. RICK/,RDS rlid nut inv(J.)lve any frnurl; it Wns designer\ merei to corn~ct n spelling mistake in the ne1me of L. J. RICK,LDS, sting cumpany. _ThP nppellant r\id nc-t Plicit any evirienc-2 _actvanced the case from th,sre. The triul jur'ge' s rulinJ matter

c'.urin<J the preliminary hE~c1ring, therefore, remaine 1 valid and the fact that h~ did not r~capitulate it in his final judgment dirl not meFJn that he failerl. to consider the is~ue of fraud. It simply meant thAt no material h,9.rl been place before him to W"lrrant consictering the matter. afresh with a view te: c1rrivin9 at a differE!nt conclusion. Indecct quite apart from the appe~llant' s failure to arldu e evi..-1ence in support of his alleg,:ition, therf' w,rn evi,·1enc,~ thc1t L. J. RICK/tRDS was -:1n exi~ting company. Fur instance, th,c.,r,. w;=is the letter (Exhibit D.11) by which tht, second resi;v:.mi:!nt h,,d , )r·:0in ted MGH;\l•fr.:D t:NTERPiUSES its aqent in all mCJttE,rs cone rninrr the purch,1s,, of ·the "r:U,spl,ltetl . ship. ..... , \ __ Th"'- 1, tb!r which 0 was cdmitted in evirl.ence withuut any Ohjr,2tien 'i.:~ _:-J'.'.:1h"d 1.12.87, . ' that is lohq hefore this dispute aruse. The letter be.,,,r:s the name 0f L. J. RICKARDS. There is 21s0 the ~!cunri respondent's r.:-erf rmc1nce ])onrl. (Exhth~t D.8) sent by Hahih Bank J,. G. Zur.D::'h'.I e National Bank af cummerce Twiga Branch. It is rtated 21.1 • 87, again that is he fore th,o mutter went tc cuurt, c1nd t bears th~ name uf L. J. RICKARDS. Such evirlence is har~ly cons stent with the · view that L. J. lUCK,dIDS is ficti tu,)us. Then there was the evideneG vf D.vJ.3 that when th'· --i. writ en statement

of cte:fene-2 was sr:nt tc the secc,,ct respon'i,-"nt in L ndon for signature,, the latter, telephonec1 tc sny th,'-lt ther WRs a mistake. The witness catequrically sb,ted that th= •••• /26 .., ·• 26 chari.g; fre:m l<ICHi>F<DS tu RICKARDS was m•!,rnt c,nly to corrRct c.:f the first 'resp<mrlent whc- cnte,[':.:rically di:>nie<l evid any u99estic.m that he ight h,we c:.,llud(~d with any one or th;:it he m 9ht have n=>.reived ny unctc~rhcind m<.mey frum cne · in on~er t:; crea e a ficti tuous s<~c 'nct. buyer ,-,nc-1. th ..,reby squeeze out the appe lant frOm the hi<l. We are s;:itj,.sfi,"<l that there was nuthinJ befv e thR c0urt from w. ich the trial judqc cGuld ~onclude or I fer thnt L. J. RIOKARDS did nut ,,xist. On the evidence I he entitled tc; fin1 that did in fact exist L- J. HICK;,HDS as company, that rd hid for the ,hip ,anrl ,.;,,,t. it it w,,s ::: ::: :::nt:::::l::rl~l:l:::: :iqh::: :::::: t:fter the appAllant' s 0 It Wi'l.S oguin cc>nte den that th!·:n·. w.-•~ in L,ct TI'.:, secund bid er, because th0. slcun<' respondent l:.:• : :: .::iilN1 to cumply wit the c'-'ndi tion in the adverti sem,mt f<.. r b"'!nrlcrs r(?quirin'1 ~n ~2: •~2 '. ~~ '." ·:: ;fi::ejn~:,::::~r::,.::::n:r,::~n:~e :o::: Only I es nblisherl thr1t ,it t c time of openin<) the tenders un i2.12.87 th" ,earnt!st m<iney rleplsj_t was alrearly rec(~ivr~d. If c1~\the tim•~ ~ I (;pening the ten<lerf the

money h21d not yet been receivP.d,;.,,__ th"! t . \ I ~r1i, ht have sume ro levr nee. .But as is now, it it see•> t<, us "·-"c .,, th_ t the first responlient exerciser.l his rliscretiun to accept '-i:~ th· r!epusi t only. 3 <:\ll, o~ leS• than aday,. aHOr the expiry the ctec'.ct linr for receivl.nCJ such 0.ep c-sits.. 0: Such exercise ~)f ' ct sd,4tion could he expect(=d especially consicterin<J that r sp<>nses to invitalions for tenders h30. nc,t been v0.ry encour,~7in9 • • .;. ••• /27 . . 27' thP. t:hat 0n -.,e first a,1verti~ement ,,-recalled It ill he ,I '· c•ccasion (>nly twe: tenders was nil and ln this ri·"S onse point c<'!nnot But lhe complaint on this wer r<~ceived. rca ~y h,we any much f.,rce vnce it was foun<i th;,t the app llant 1 s bid was, -ancelled following his cwn <lefaul t. The seccnd aspect 0f the issue of fraud was the allegc1tic,n 0f blackmail which, a state<l earlier in this judgment, was ~u y ·!'onsider• n aM Ljected hy the trial judg;,. Again th. appelle~t a<'<'.<lucL no positiv~ eviOence on the issue. Th re were suggesti1s to the resp~dents' witnesses or th<'-! first i crvss-exc1mination t)iat the-. ship's captain r spOndent blackmailed some member ur memhers of the crew i tu makin0 false ~nlry in the ship's 100 hook to the effe~t t rit the nppellant hld wi thclrawn his hid fo110wing thP refusal o his demand to hal the ship's engine started. Apart

from t e. failure by the abpellant • s side t< · a ,!,!uce any evi•lonc" n support uf th~ aJlegi"tic.•n, 'there w;,s pu~itive P-vict,mce Jy o;w.i who categolically dnnied t• hav: been blac~ailed -ntu makirig the enth in thE"'. log ])ock. Again then' was C .vidence that thtl ship's captain was· out of Tanzania m the dab?. the ent,ry was mane, so that ' h(': car:not have hc10~, nything t<· c',o wJth the said entry, an<l then ther~' wAs the evidence cf thf' fijst respondent whu denie:d the su000stiGn that the sai<i entrJ was fabricated. The all~i<JAtion of blackmail was thE-)refGrc righbly rejected • .In the c<,urstl )f arguing this u r.prial the appr;~l lant' s counsel made 1onq s~h11issiCJns rnising th,~ twc' nspects of th,~ issue of fraud ;is outlined c1h(~ve but with 1ot:s c;f ramifications •••• /28 ... 28 .,_ anrt emhe lishment. They JgOroUsly corttenrted that the tric-1 J '9e foiled t-' cvns~der the issue and that ther't• was ,,cfore im. enou9h ,avia.ence to support it. With due respect to the therci can 1,•~ no .merit .whatsoever in thnt c{in1plc1int. i\s ind· catPd sufficiently, the learned himself to the issue of fraud but dg0 clearly ad<lre,sad trial j as nu mRterial pl~ced alle<Jo ion. cc..'unsel fur, 'thf·: secc.,nd respondent had challen1ect. I th~ tit er side t•._) fr.rnnr~ ·.G1ud as an issue at the tr"inl·•. But the <J er side cteclint:!dl t1.., dG so. During th€~

trial the learn• d trial Judg,, spjifically declared fraud as an issue befor . i him and invited tm,.e Appellant's counsel to lend evnence tJ \ pruve it, hut the latter failect tu lr-iad 2.ny positive evictence su,:~•:steo I to witnesses "in cross-exarnin<"ti-:.>n and i stead simply ·, In thvsc circurnsbmces, it is clear that here w~s fraud- 1 that cf f auc. is curnpletcly withuut justific2.tion. jud_e fur hc,lding that the sf'cnnd rc:!pon<lent was the true That grcund, _however, was nut t: own r uf as counsel rightly stated, it merged separately in the rest <;f the grounns. '\ I 'In the result, we1:are satisfied that the learnen. jud<1e pr pe·rly directe<l hi self on the issues before him and come : . ;'."' . Tht~ c1p1)eal th(~refOre fails an<l is t:.c ·the right cC>nclusi :n. : :;\\:. ·-. •1,;.