[1932] EACA 4

[1932] EACA 4

The Court held that the conduct of the creditor and debtor in varying the payment terms of the agreement, without consulting or obtaining the consent of the guarantor, amounted to a material alteration of the contract. This alteration was more than mere forbearance; it constituted a substantive change in the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1932] EACA 4
Parties
Appellant: Uganda Commercial Co. (Kampala), Ltd.; Respondent: Jamal Din Uppal
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
1 January 1932
Case Number
CA. 3/1932.
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal_dismissed_with_costs
Judges
Barth, C.J (Kenya), Griffin C.J. (Uganda), Sheridan, C.J. (Tanganyika)
Legal Topics
Guarantee Liability, Variation of Contract, Surety Discharge, Creditor Forbearance
Source Language
english
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Guarantee Liability Variation of Contract Surety Discharge Creditor Forbearance

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Uganda Commercial Co. (Kampala), Ltd.

Appellant

Jamal Din Uppal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether variation of the terms of a contract by conduct of creditor and debtor releases the guarantor if the guarantor is not party to such variation.
  2. 2 Whether leniency or forbearance shown by the creditor amounts to a discharge of the surety under the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the conduct of the creditor and debtor in varying the payment terms of the agreement, without consulting or obtaining the consent of the guarantor, amounted to a material alteration of the contract. This alteration was more than mere forbearance; it constituted a substantive change in the obligations guaranteed. The surety's liability was strictly tied to the original terms of the agreement, and any deviation from those terms without his participation or approval discharged him from liability. The Court found that the evidence supported the trial Judge's finding that the creditor's lenience and acquiescence in irregular payments were at variance with the agreement and...

Court Disposition

appeal_dismissed_with_costs

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.