20
when an email is forwarded the address of the original sender of the email remains intact unless
deliberately tampered with. In this case there is also nothing to show that the email was
forwarded to the plaintiff’s lawyers unless the plaintiff’s lawyers are also called Muse Afework
which is the name of PW1. As far as the records are concerned, the plaintiff was at first
represented by M/S KMSO Attorneys & Legal Consultants but later the firm of M/S Birungyi,
Barata & Associates took over conduct of the case. If at all the said email was forwarded to the
plaintiff’s lawyers as alleged, I would have expected the name of any of the two law firms to
appear on the email. It cannot therefore be true that the email is a print out of what was
forwarded to the plaintiff’s lawyers. It is also not convincing that the plaintiff would prefer to
tender in evidence the forwarded copy and not the original email from Mr. Shore to PW1.
For the above reasons, I do find that Exhibit P9 (i) is a forgery which this court cannot rely upon
to prove the alleged communication between Mr. Shore and PW1 and to justify why the plaintiff
stopped importing the PANASUPER batteries. Instead I find the reason that the plaintiff stopped
because the 2nd & 3rd defendant started dealing with the 1st defendant more convincing. That also
leads me to the conclusion that the plaintiff was indeed the agent of the 2nd defendant having
been duly appointed vide the letter of distributorship admitted in evidence as Exhibit D7 which
though the Plaintiff denied, clearly stated that the contract was valid from April 2006 to March
2012. It is no wonder that when that contract expired in March 2012 the 1st defendant was
appointed the new agent vide Exhibit D 16 and the Plaintiff stopped importing the PANASUPER
batteries because the owner of that trademark who is the manufacturer stopped supplying the
same to the Plaintiff.
I was further fortified to come to the above conclusion by the fact that the only reason for
denying Exhibit D7 is that PW1 did not sign it. The plaintiff did not adduce any evidence to
show that its managing director is the only officer who is authorised to sign all its documents. It
is noteworthy that the plaintiff is a limited liability company which under the company law must
have a secretary. In the absence of any proof that the managing director was the only person
authorised to sign on behalf of the plaintiff company it is possible that the secretary or any other
senior officer of the company could have signed the distributorship agreement and therefore it
would be binding.
20