[1956] EACA 7
The court held that Order 29, rules 1 and 9 of the Civil Procedure and Practice do not permit a sole proprietor to sue in a business name other than his own. The binding precedent from George & Co. v. Pritam's Auto Service was applied, confirming that a single person cannot institute proceedings in a business name....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1956] EACA 7
- Parties
- Appellant: Gurbaksh Singh; Respondent: Bhasker and Company
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1956
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal_allowed
- Judges
- Corrie J
- Legal Topics
- Business Names in Litigation, Sole Proprietor Suing, Order 29 Application, Firm Name Suits
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Gurbaksh Singh
Appellant
Bhasker and Company
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a sole proprietor can institute proceedings in a business name other than his own under Order 29, rules 1 and 9.
- 2 Whether the Resident Magistrate erred in law by allowing suit in a firm name for a sole proprietor.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that Order 29, rules 1 and 9 of the Civil Procedure and Practice do not permit a sole proprietor to sue in a business name other than his own. The binding precedent from George & Co. v. Pritam's Auto Service was applied, confirming that a single person cannot institute proceedings in a business name. The Resident Magistrate's judgment was therefore erroneous in law, and the suit instituted in the name 'Bhasker and Company' by a sole proprietor was not maintainable. The appeal was allowed, and the respondent's suit was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
appeal_allowed
Orders
- Judgment of the Resident Magistrate's Court set aside.
- Respondent's suit dismissed with costs here and below.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
## APPELLATE CIVIL
### Before SIR OWEN CORRIE, J.
## **GURBAKSH SINGH, Appellant**
# BHASKER AND COMPANY, Respondents
# Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1956
Civil Procedure and Practice Order 29, rules 1 and 9—Institution of suit by individual in a name other than his own—Plaintiff suing in a business name.
The suit was instituted in the name of "Bhasker and Company". The Resident Magistrate ruled that Order 29, rules 1 and 9 appear to be the case of an individual suing in a business name. On appeal this was submitted to be an error in law.
Held (31-7-56).—It is not open to a single person carrying on business under some name other than his own to sue in the name under which he carries on business.
Appeal allowed.
Case cited: George & Co. v. Pritam's Auto Service, Civil Suit No. 1804 of 1955.
#### F. R. de Souza for appellant.
$R. D.$ Patel, for respondent.
Editor's Note.-In Velji Arjan Patel v. National Contractors (1954) 21 E. A. C. A. 39 the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa held that an individual has no right to institute proceedings in his business name.
JUDGMENT.—This is an appeal from a judgment of the Resident Magistrate, Nairobi, given on 9th April, 1956, in Civil Case No. 1042 of 1956.
The sole ground of appeal is that the learned magistrate erred in law in holding that neither Order XXIX, rule 1 or rule 9 has any application to the position of a firm owned by a person; and that a sole proprietor has a right to sue and can properly sue in the firm name and not in his own name "trading as proprietor of such firm".
In support of this appeal, Mr. De Souza has referred to various English and Indian decisions: but it is unnecessary that I should discuss them in view of the fact that he has also cited the judgment of Mayers J., in George and Company v. Pritam's Auto Service, Civil Case No. 1804 of 1953 (unreported). In that case precisely the same point was taken, and the Court held that it is not open to a single person carrying on business under some name other than his own to sue in the name under which he carries on business.
That judgment is binding upon me. The respondent has not filed a reply asking that he be allowed to amend his plaint, and that question is therefore not now before this Court.
The appeal is allowed; the judgment of the Resident Magistrate's Court is set aside and the respondent's suit is dismissed with costs here and below.