George Asafu-ad Jaye (Adonten-nene) V. John Holt & Anor (1940)
LawGlobal Hub Judgment Report – West African Court of Appeal
Claim for commission on cash sales made with approval of the Agent.
Held : The Plaintiff-Appellant’s agreement cannot be construed so as to entitle him to commission on all cash sales, but only on those made with the
approval of the Agent.
The facts are fully set out in the judgment.
E. 0. Asafu-Adjaye (with him A. S. E. Brown) for Plaintiff-Appellant.
T. Hutton-Mills for Defendants-Respondents.
The following joint judgment was delivered :—
KINGDON, C.J.. NIGERIA, PETRIDES, C.J., GOLD COAST AND GRAHAM PAUL, C.J., SIERRA LEONE.
Unfortunately in this case the learned Trial Judge, though delivering an oral judgment lasting three-quarters of an hour, has placed upon record no findings of fact and no reasons for his decision. In the result this appeal has taken up an unnecessarily large amount of the time of this Court. It is always a help to this Court when a Trial Judge records his findings of fact and the reasons for his decision, however shortly. Having heard Counsel on both sides we are satisfied that the judgment of the Court below was right for two reasons. The first is that the plaintiff failed to prove any cash sales made by him with the approval of the Company’s Agent, except the single one in respect of which he has been credited with commission. Upon this point we cannot agree with the contention made on behalf of the appellant that the passage in Clause 13 of the Agreement between the parties :–
” On Cash Sales made by the employee a
commission at the rate of
1 per cent.”
With the approval of the Agent of the
Company
must be construed so as to entitle the plaintiff to commission upon all cash sales made by the Company from the wholesale. store upon a Store Requisition Order. To entitle him to commission on a cash sale the plaintiff has got to show that that particular sale was made by him with the approval of the Agent. The second reason is that we consider that the plaintiff cannot now be heard to dispute the correctness of the basis upon which his commission
account with the Company was calculated, since on the 30th September, 1938, he signed that account as correct, although by consent the correctness of the calculation of the one item in that account has been gone into and it has been found that the figure shown therein should be 10s. 10d. instead of 4s. 4d.
Having regard to the large sum claimed, £312 10s. 9d., and the small sum, 10s. 10d., awarded, we think that the plaintiff was fortunate to have been given any costs in the Court below.
The appeal is dismissed with costs assessed at £23 15s. 6d.
