3
sued is the principal” Per Wright J, in Montgomerie vs United Kingdom Mutual
Steamship Association (1891) 1 QB 370 at 371.”
They also cited the case of Friendship Container Manufacture Ltd vs Mitchell Cotts (K) Ltd
(2001)2 EA 338 where the Court considered the issue whether a disclosed agent was liable for a
principal’s breach of contract and held, citing Ram vs Singh (1933)5 ULR 76, that “a person
who acts as a disclosed agent is not liable to the Plaintiff in respect of particular transactions.”
It was then contended that in the instant case there was a disclosed principle who was known to
the Plaintiff. According to counsels, Exhibit D 2 (iv), the 1st defendant’s Bill of Lading, clearly
shows Linyi Huatai Battery Co. Ltd as the Shipper and Bilen General Trading Ltd (1st Defendant
as the consignee). They pointed out that Exhibit D2 (xiv), the Plaintiff’s Bill of Lading also
clearly shows Linyi Huatai Battery Co. Ltd as the Shipper and Muse- Af Enterprises Co. Ltd
(Plaintiff) as the consignee. They argued that from the foregoing the Plaintiff had dealt with the
principal before instituting the suit and as such the 1st defendant cannot be a party to this suit
since the principal is disclosed and well known to the Plaintiff.
Furthermore, it was contended that the 1st defendant entered into a distributorship agreement
with Linyi Huatai Battery Co. Ltd (Exhibit D16.) and as such became an agent of the 2 nd
Defendant on the 21/11/2012 and that relationship was not denied or contested by the Plaintiff.
Counsels referred to the evidence of PW1 Muse Aferwoki during cross examination that from
2012 they stopped importing PANASUPER when Linyi started dealing with Bilen.
They submitted that from the above it’s clear that the Plaintiff knew the principal and was fully
aware that the 1st defendant was only an agent but however went ahead to sue it. They argued
that to retain the 1st Defendant as in this suit would be acting contrary to the holdings in Ram vs
Singh (Supra) and Friendship Container Manufacture Ltd vs Mitchell Cotts (K) Ltd (Supra).
They therefore prayed that the 1st defendant be struck out from these proceedings as the plaintiff
has no cause of action against it and all allegations in the Plaint referring to the 1 st Defendant be
disregarded and struck out as well.
3