JUDGMENT

VC George J:

[On encl. (14)]

The plaintiffs are a British Company and sue the 1st defendant for amounts outstanding on two bills of exchange "drawn" according to para. 4 of the statement of claim, "by the plaintiffs upon the 1st defendants in England, payable to the plaintiffs on 1st presentation on 6 April 1987 and 23 November 1987 respectively." It is contended that the 1st defendant is the acceptor of the two bills. The other defendants are sued as guarantors of the 1st defendant.

Particulars are given in the statement of claim as to how the amounts said to be outstanding are arrived at. The particulars show that there had been part payment of principal in respect of each of the bills and that the plaintiffs are claiming interest calculated on the balance of the principal sum outstanding from time to time in respect of one bill at 14% per annum and in respect of the other at 15.2625% per annum.

Then comes para. 5 of the statement of claim which reads as follows:

5. The said bills of exchange have been duly dishonoured and protested for non-payment.

The plaintiff had successfully taken out an O. 14 application against all the defendants. The matter before me is the appeal by the defendants against the summary judgment that was entered against them.

The first of 3 points taken in the submission by Encik K. Balaguru of Counsel for the defendants/appellants in effect was that the statement of claim does not disclose a cause of action in that the plaintiffs had failed to plead that there had been due presentation of the bills for payment. It was his contention that para. 5 of the statement of claim did not meet the omission. He contended that the statement of claim "does not state what kind of dishonour there was and what kind of non-payment."

The connotation and effect of the words "duly dishonoured" pleaded in para. 5 of the statement of claim is that there had been due presentation that resulted in non-payment. There can be no dishonour unless there was a presentation. Particulars of when, where and how the presentation was made are, particularly in the case of an acceptor without qualification, particulars not essential for there to be a complete cause of action as a perusal of the relevant sections of the Bills of Exchange Act will show.

Section 17(1) of the Bills of Exchange Act provides that the acceptance of a bill is signification by the drawee of his assent to the order of the drawer. Section 17(2. provides that the acceptance must be written on the bill and it must not express that the drawee will preform his promise by any other means than the payment of money. As Byles on Bills of Exchange 25th Edn., p. 97 puts it:

The acceptance of a bill is therefore, in plain terms, a written engagement to pay the bill when due in money and by no other means.

Now having accepted the bill is there a need to present the bill for payment before the acceptor can be said to be liable on the bill? Section 52(1) provides the answer:

52(1) When a bill is accepted generally, presentation for payment is not necessary in order to render the acceptor liable.

And s. 19(2) defines "general acceptance":

19(2) A general acceptance assents without qualification to the order of the drawer.

It is plain from the terms of the statement of claim that the averment is that the acceptance was in respect of bills for fixed amounts to mature on a fixed date in each case. The 1st defendant is not contending that the bills had not been accepted or that the acceptances were qualified. In that situation s. 52(1) operates. The learned authors of Byles 25th Edn. say, at p. 112 in the commentary on the identical English s. 52(1), that while it is usual to present to the acceptor for payment s. 52(1) makes such presentation unnecessary to bring home liability to the acceptor. Even if there was no fixed date of maturity (as is not the case here) but the instrument is payable on demand, as against the acceptor there is no need to even make a demand. The act