Student’s name HAWA FAYIAH

ID NUMBER 075-801
PROGRAME BBA- AF
MODULE Banking law
CAT 1

Required: With reference to the case of Great Western Railway v London and County
Banking Co. Ltd, advise Mr. John Kaggwa whether or not he can rightly sue Exim Bank.
Justify your answer. Total 15 marks.
A bank is a financial institution that accepts deposits from the public and creates a demand
deposit while simultaneously making loans. Lending activities can be directly performed by the
bank or indirectly through.
Definition of Customer under Common Law
A person who has an account with the banks and it can be either saving or current account. A
person must have some form of account with the bank to be a customer.
Basic Contractual Relationship
There is no statutory definition of a bank customer and therefore it is necessary to release on case
law in order to establish whether a person is a customer or not
In Great Western Railway v. London and Country Banking co. {1901}, it was stated that a
customer must have a current account or deposit account or some similar relationship.
However not all customers of banks deposits money and may for instance deposit valuables other
than money yet the bank regards such people as customers
With reference to the case of Great Western Railway v London and County Banking Co.
Ltd, Mr. John has no right to sue the Exim bank,
Because of the following reason
In Great Western Railway v. London and Country Banking co. { 1901}, it was stated that a
customer must have a current account or deposit account or some similar relationship.
However not all customers of banks deposits money and may for instance deposit valuables
other than money yet the bank regards such people as customers.
From the case stated case of Great Western Railway v London and County Banking Co. Ltd,
Mr. John Kaggwa has no right to sue the Exim bank, because the so call man knows as
(JAJOK Rocky ) who he (John Kaggwa) wants to sue the because of him , he had no account
with the Exim bank although it paid him him a cheque, and Great Western Railway v
London and County Banking state that a customer most have a current account or deposit
account or any other similar relationship, how ever the case state that not all customer of the
bank deposit money and may for instance, deposit valuable other than money, yet the bank
regards such people as customer but in this case of john kaggwa and his his landlord’s is
 different because his landlord (jajok Rocky does not have any such of account with the bank
of Exim.

Another reason that According to the great western Co. vs London banking country stated
that ever one who take cheque marked not’s negotiable ‘takes it at his own risk ,and his title
to the money gut by its means is a defective his title to cheque its self. Whether the (Title to)
cheque was void only voidable appears to me really immaterial If it was void, it was not
negotiable, and by s,81 of bills exchange Act Mr. john kaggwa ( the holder ) was not capable
of giving a better title to the cheque that he had himself.

Another reason why Exim is to be due because when we read back from the story of Mr. john
kaggwa and his landlord Mr.jajok Rocky ,were there was a statement that say Mr., john
kaggwa and come to realized that his cheque of 5,000,000 was stolen, when it was already
too late or rather when me jajok Rocky had already cashed the money, and because of that
Exim bank is not responsible or should not be sue by Mr., kaggwa john rather it is his
mistake he (Mr. kaggwa john is the only one who is responsible for his stolen cheque.
For a person to be a customer of a bank he must either have a deposit or a current account
with the bank, or there must be some entry of debit or credit in the bank’s book or papers
relating to his transactions, or some similar relation must exist, and applying this test, he was
not a ‘customer’ of the bank within the based on section 82
In this situation, the bank did not receive payment of the cheque for him under section 82
because the money in respect of the cheque had already been given to him in exchange for
the cheque, and so the money received by the bank when the cheque was prescribed was
received for the bank’s own account for reimbursement, not for him.
He had never had any title to the cheque, and because it was marked “not negotiable,” the
bank could not acquire a better title to it than he did under section 81 of the Act, and the
bank’s title to the money received in exchange for the cheque was as defective as their title to
the cheque itself; thus, the appellants were entitled to succeed and the bank was not entitled
to the protection offered.
The court held that as there was no sort of account, he was not a customer of the bank.
Because a person is a customer only if he has an account with the bank so Mr. john has no right
to sue the Exim bank,
Because of the following reason