The Law of Bailment in Sudan: Comparative insights from English law and proposals for reform
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.63939/JAAS.2026-Vol9.N30.9-19Mots-clés :
Bailment, Bailor, Bailee, Standard of Care, Common Carriers, Sudanese Law.Résumé
Bailment is an important legal relationship that facilitates the temporary transfer of movable property possession. The transfer can be for different reasons, while ownership in all cases remains with the bailor. This paper examines the concept of bailment in both English and Sudanese law, with particular emphasis on its definition, legal nature, and practical applications. This study further investigates the main types of bailment, the duties imposed on bailees, and the varying standards of care required in different categories of bailment. Special attention is given to commercial bailees whose activities involve the possession or transportation of goods, including common carriers, warehouse companies and innkeepers. We also discuss the controversial situation of banks providing safe deposit box services. This paper compares the degree of liability imposed on bailees and explores the policy considerations underlying the stricter standards applied to certain categories, especially common carriers.
Through a comparative analysis of English and Sudanese legal principles, this study identifies several gaps and practical challenges affecting the regulation of bailment in Sudan.
The paper concludes by proposing a number of recommendations aimed at modernizing and strengthening the law of bailment in Sudan. These include legislative reforms, clearer rules governing commercial bailees, and the adoption of more comprehensive provisions related to warehouse operators, common carriers, and bank safe deposit box services. Such reforms would enhance legal certainty, improve property interest protection, and promote confidence in commercial transactions involving bailment.
Références
Agrawal, A. (2005, June 24). Types of bailment [Essay]. LawBhoomi. LawBhoomi.com
Beaves, A. V. (1998). Global custody—A tentative analysis of property and contract. In E. McKendrick & N. Palmer (Eds.), Interests in goods (2nd ed). LLP.
Bridge, M. (2002). Personal property law (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Bridge, M., Gullifer, L., McMeel, G., & Worthington, S. (2013). The law of personal property. Sweet & Maxwell.
Brake, B. (2014). Personal property in a nutshell (4th ed.). West Academic Publishing.
Cheeseman, H. R. (2004). Business law (5th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
Civil Transactions Act (1984).
Harris, D. R. (1963). The concept of possession in English law. In A. G. Guest (Ed.), Oxford essays in jurisprudence. Oxford University Press.
- Lin, T. Y. (2014). Personal property law. Academy Publishing.
- Lord. (1983). The legal relationship between the bank and its safe deposit customer. Campbell Law
Review, 5, 263.
McMeel, G. (2004). The redundancy of the concept of bailment. In A. Hudson (Ed.), New perspectives on property law, obligations and restitution. Cavendish.
Palmer, N. (2009). Palmer on bailment (3rd ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.
Pollock, F. (1828). An essay on possession in the common law. Clarendon Press.
Sealy, L. S., & Hooley, R. J. A. (2008). Commercial law: Text, cases, and materials (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Sheehan, D. (2019). The principles of personal property law (2nd ed.). Hart Publishing.
Vaines, C. (1973). Personal property law. Butterworths.
Worthington, S. (2000). Personal property law: Texts and materials. Hart Publishing.
Worthington, S. (2013). The law of personal property. Sweet & Maxwell.
Democratic Arab Center GmbH
Cases:
- Allright, Inc v Strawder, 679 S.W..2d 81 (tex. App 1984).
- Armistead v Wilde (1851) 17 QB 261.
- Ashby v Tolhurst [1973] 2 K.B 242 (CA)
- China Pacific SA v Food Corporation of India [1982] AC 939 (HL).
- Coggs v Bernard (1703) 2 LD Ray 909,92, ER 107.
- Edwards v Newland & Co. [1958] 2 KB 534.
- Forward v Pittard (1785) 1. T.R.27, 99 E.R,953 (K.B). 1 QB 694.
- Houghland v RR Low Ltd. [1962]
- Jewelers Mutual Inc Co. v Firstar Bank, 792, NE, 2d 1 (ct. App 2003).
- Mitchell v Earling LBC [1979] 1 QB 1
- Morris v Martin & Sons Ltd. [1966] 1 QB 716.
- Mustafa Abbashar v Um Elhassan Khatir, SLJR, (1966) 123.
Téléchargements
Publiée
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
Merci de créditer les auteurs lors de toute citation : Revue des études Afro-Asiatiques (2026)

Ce travail est disponible sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale 4.0 International.
