Adeline Port Louis v Central Stores (Development) Limited (SCA 10 of 1984) [1985] SCCA 2 (30 July 1985)

.' -' ',. .' . '~ ,. IN 'THE SEYCHELLES COURT OF APPEAL ', ..·A.deljnaPort Louis Appellant C¢rttral S~ores (Developm~nt) Limited Respondent, v/s. Civil Appeal No: 10 of 1984 :- . . ' .~l~,J " . J.~ j:, ..~:.,.. . JUDGMENT The respondent ~as the owner and ,lessor of business. premises ,. at :Victoria House , Victoria. The ..lessee was a private company- ,~a1led eam, Group "(:Fty')Ltd.,trading under the nam!! "Boutique des Jeunes". The shop (boutique) was managed by the appeLLarrt, . The .monthly rent payable for the premises was R 4,248.92 cs and in ~adl.tion R 684.90 cs monthly as service charge. / • ... As at Octobet 5, 1979, the 'lessee was indebted to the respondent in the sum of R 73,623.74 cs as arrears of rent and service charge. On the same date, i.e. Octooer 5, 1979, the . ,. appellan~ allegedly sign,a.a document (Exhibit·7) undertaking to pay to the respondent "a.l1. S\. IIIlSwhich remain due. and outstanding by;virtue of an underpaym~~t of the rental and charges", under t.he lease agreement between the respondent ?Ddthe Cam Group (pty) Ltd. On October 19, 1983, tbe respondent, on the stI'ength of the q!:tf:!d the appellant before the :juprelne Court (E;,:h.i.hi t t), document. claiming payment of R ~,)8~.92 cs as arrears due by the lessee. The defence of the,a. Ppellal!twas one of gener-a. Ldenial. II After ~- l' .•. hearing evidence the learned trial Judge gave judgment in favour of the respondent in the sum claimed. The judgment of the learned trial Judge'·is being impugned on the following grounds: .. -.--_. - "1 • The finding of the learn,e.d.judge that on a balance of probabilities it is more· likely than not that Mrs :Port Louis signed the n~\e is not supported by any evidence and fails to taKe into account the signature ·of Mrs Port Louis on the lease which defers from the one on the note. 'j , ,'! 'fl~~~~~~~£,~,~:':t~i'/.;;".' .~.:·,t: t, ..k.·:,j3"~_l#i~~~t1'ii{~ff.j;+.;,,~\!:·i. A·.;;,.:,,';'{~:H :." ,.... -: ! 2. Th~.learned judge erred in his ~inding that . defendant was actin~ vithin the scope of her trade the . . 'or employmentwhen she signed the note as surety and " Act .1326 therefore has no application , orJe finding of -the learned ,uage that ifj liable 3. to this case. the appe. Lfant, ,,. for r'ent and '~!I.ai-geincurred by ,the: lease 'after "the. date of the n~te is wrong and unreasonable.'" Ground 1. This ground lS'devoid of any merit. '~ • The appellant in her plea:chose not to specifically·deny·being the author of the document relied upon by the re~pondent. It is an elementary rule of pleadings that what is 'n?t :specifically denied is''deemed to have been admitted. It must·.also be noted .that the document was admitted in:Court without any,'objection. In my view the learned trial Judge should not have~·allowedcounsel for the appellant • to address the C~urt and ra~se·the issue of the signature appearing on the documel!-~'at the close of the case in face of the pleadings and admissions. Ground 2. I agree '~ith the submi~sion of counsel for the appellant that Art 1326 aPflies in this~ase. But, although the docum~nt (Exhibit 1) did~ot' compl~ with the provisions of . Article 1326, it does .not m~' .that, i~'is null and void to all . intents und purpose. It may constitute "a conunencementde preuve 11U./.' eCl'i c" ,;itir.:tl cou. Ld be 'supplemented by oz-al. e:•..i.ucucc- or presumption, Da. Ll.oz , NQuveauRe.pertoire Pratique VO• PreUVE: n.170. D.1806.1.528. ".~ Fuzi.er=Hermanin Code Civil ~iVre III Titre IiI note 15i•has this to say: "L'irregularite de l'acte provenant d~ l'o~ission "du bon" ou "approuv€" peut se couvrir par l'executi<,?n volontaire " de l' obligation " In the present case' ~jl,re has been partial execution of the " obligation. Further t~ document has been amply "supplemented" by the evidence of Mrs,Gayon.:" Ground 2 fails. .. ",' ,',I I .', ~i~~~~i-~{:;:jj;'h~"""',<",·.,,:,;,,+ 't': " .. .', ' . Ground'·3. 'l'he relevant par:t; of the judgment of the learned,' judge resds as ~ollows: -, c ' . " .•:0. " : ', ...... ', ,." '.<: • , "Mr Bouile has mad,e'a number of submissions with regard to the amourrtfor vni.ch hi~,c~i.ent is liable '00 the note in the event of her beil\g liable at all." The main pOint he has '. • I <I • , • .'; • •••• submitted is that only the','sum putstanding as at; p,ctober 51', . ,~ ." . ~ .' .. -, th~nk I can' sustun . . ;.' '1979i less payment ~s payable. I ,I: ,do not :this!argument:i~ the face of ~he'W~!di~'Of 'the n9te it~~lf which is clear that the:promisor "(andertook) to repay all sums;which remain due and outstanding by virtue of an underpayment;;:f the, re,ntal and charges under a lease , . '. agreeme~t witA Central Stores Develo~ent Limited for the shop No. 1 in 'Victoria House Arca9-e." I cannot find my way to go along with the learned, tl;'ial Judge in his construction of ~e document (Exhibit 7). In my view, the appellant undertook t~.guarapte~ payment of R 73,623.74 cs only and not all past a.nc\' f~ture ~~rears. ,. In that ,connection I find ,A, the evidence of Mrs'''Gay01ve:'; perti~~nt : ~,", . ,_ \;1,. " The tenant 'was~flot'regu}-iI.rwith the rent and service Ch6.rg~~ Statement of account ,was submitted to the tenant on July 5, '191'1'; ' and the claim was R·T~;623.74cs ... At:ter the statement of,' . ': "': ~ '~ .t:~ 'j' ' " ' September 5, 1979. Mi's;Port, Louis signed a note to undertake to ~~,;-~".. .. . '., IJ.. J,J :.lot j l;"l!t":l'l\i'til!l(~nts U)\der the Lease . 'l'h i s \It;.:; l·r.r •.:i ~·_~:t'\-I·(·iJ or: " ;- -, ijl..:t.'~·,lll..·J: :', (1·;:·:.i;~I·,ii_-. ·f). It i!3 upon I...hal. IluL·: I.li:tl- til' l::t.'lil!,allj I.".; 1I0W' claiming the !;\. I:lJ, of 'moneyfrom Mr:; l\c\eJ.illu PurL I.•ouiu .•• " The position of ~,"cautionneur" is always,. j.n the eye pf the law. a favourable on,e."his obligation will not be extended beyond the precise limits of the words used." a •••~"' \,:-" , .~, il doi t etre expres , '" if a t.es , dans lesquelles ~~ Le cautionnement ne se. pr~Elfpoint. et on nf!,peut l' et~ndre au del&:':il~s~ .' '.., ..- '..•"-" "Le ps.i.ement,fait ,par Le debiteur de deux ~etlls egalement echu~,s, <lont'I'Wfe est cau'ti.onnee, doit etre'.impute ',... , La d.ett<\caut;ionnee.'" '. sur". •.. " There have, been two payments effected QY the appellant, one 'of the sum'o~"RI1,500 ari~' the other of. R 14;801:.46 c s . I agree wit~,. . . " ~•..~ . . ". . ' '.' , . '..~.:.,'. '.~..•. ' " , Sauz~erJ A for the reas~>ns he has given 'in 'his separate' ju~eft " . :' "" :. , ()lhi~h I ~eed not repett) ., .' . 'that both these two pa)'ment's should be . ., a1?plied to .the ~umwhich was' guarantieed by the ~ppel1ant. The appellant succeeds on this ground. I accordingly amend the jUd&ment " of the 'su~reme Court'bY SUbstituting the sum of R 57,322.28 cs for the sum of R 67,182.92 cs. I'order the respondent to pay ,half of the appel1ant's costs of the appeal. , Delivered at Victoria 'this ." -. .~. 'H. Goby.rdhun Justice of Appeal. ; ! i I I , , -.'" .. " .1 i .: .'.'.: \,;, .~ ~A~:;,,:,4"" -.t -, :~. I~- ,IN THE SEYCHELLES COUi<T OF APPEAL Adelina Port Louis Appellant vis Central Stores (Development) Limited Respondent Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1984 Mr. Ko Karan for the app~llant; Mr. K. Shah for the respondent JUDGMENT The respondent is the owner of shop premises at referred House in the town of Victoria. company called Victoria were leased to a private Ltd., hereinafter trading under the name of Boutique appellant was the manager the only person who ever deal~ith half of Cam Group. The respondent Those prem~ses Cam Group (Ptfy) to as "Cam Group", which ~as des Jeunes. of Boutique des Jeunes and;was on:be- the respondent sued the appellant in the Supreme The: plus interest and signed by and, dated October 5, 1979 by virtue of which undertook in her personal name and capacity, all sums which remain due and of R.67,189.92 Court for the payment costs on the strength of 'a document allegedly the appellant the appellant, to repay to the respondent outstanding charges under the lease agreement between and Cam Group. as Exhibit,,? by virtue of, an underpayment The document of the rental and the respondent has been produced and marked After hearing the case and dealing with the various points raised in argument by counsel for the appellant, the learned in the sum of R.6'/,189.92 with interest trial Judge gave judgment for the respon~ent and costs as claimed., The appellant appeals to this Court against the whole on three grounds as follows;- of the decision "1. The finding of the learned jlldge that on; a it is more likely than balance not that Mrs. Port Louis signed the note is not supported by any evidence and fails to take ~to account the signature of Mrs. Port Louis on the lease which differs from the one on the note~ of probabilities ~. the defendant trade or employment The learned judge erred in his finding that was acting within the scope of her when she signed the note as _A surety and Article 1326 therefore has no applica- tion to this case. The finding 3. appellant by the lessee after the date of the note is wr9ng and unreasonable." is liable for rent and charge incurred of the learned judge that the ..';.. -: , ..i';';~:~~:~:;'.:~·:"+:~~~!~!~'~~~I ! I shall deal with the groundeof which the! have been' raised." . .-\::'1') •.:. I'{" ..". :' : • .; appeal in the order in ", • .' j Ground 1 '.::. .;' . The.document, Exhibit ?, on which·the·respondent . is a document signatur~~;'t~:;"~hichArticles 1323 and 1326 to relied 5,.nIhis case agB:ii{st'.the appellant under pri~ate ". ..•. q:::j "t ••., ~ \.' of the Civil Code o~. Seychelles, t··· as "the Code", apply. ",·';Under,thi·sground of appeal' we are concerned with Ar~~9.1~s~1~~3and 1324 of the Code which run [as follows :-,,\ ;. hereinafter . t/"' •..•.•.· '. ", 'r~-~,'I.: referred 0c+it".-,_ ". 'p ;". ". \ . •. ~ , , . ... ~~~ . Articl'e .'.1323 ~'r ".. 't. L,. \~ ,. .••..•. I itA person against',whom a document under private sigqature is pleaded 'shall be bound to acknowledge or repudiate .formally ,his handwriting or his sig-. natu're. J!I '.' ! His heirs or.ass:j,gns m~ restrict ~~ ~~~. ~L~~ themselves to declaring that handwriting or the"signature they'do not recognise either of the principal. the .":'~' . I Whena party repudiates his handwriting or his A.rtidie '1324 ;' ?' .:. "';.'~~"r . I or when'~hisheirs or assigns declare signature, that· they do not,recogniseeither shall decide the issue ,after hearing evidence. trhe law ..·of evidence shan apply. this It ." is unf~rtunat~th~f.; ~~e.nthe amendedplaint wa!!... of them, the Court respect,' ,," ,'<, In ".", lj . .. '1 , , .i . . • • . r. .. .. --;,,',"1 -i- -e-. ,..."t, '·,d·ul'·r"·! .... . . .....a~'t·,··-,.., filed a photocopy ofthe,~o~ument, Exhibit 2, was not . '~~"H0~".;,-.,.. '{! attached to it. the appellant . That'would have given the opportunity to in to acknowleq.ge,J;oi-'repudiate her signature " .. . her statement of defen:ce'~"!-s-itis, defence only .contains· a'general' denial of paragraph 2 of; the plaint alleged that·the appellant had 'signed Exhib~~i'?",,: Apart from being bad pleaa.ing, -".. z-epuud.a tn.on or ber Signature by' the appellant . by Article;1323 of the Code•.- . that· general' denial' . in which it was specifically formal, as required is not a sufficient thestatement '~':"-:- of. ~;.'- of ~. q". .' ('~" , ..•,..~ -1..,.-. ." ,'< .-. •••.•.• , &., ~'. ; <' . . '.<. " .' - j - Moreover when Exhibit? was produced as an exhibit .•~~-""""'-"" ~r--.,.~"t .... ""r·t:i'· ~ .. -; in the case no formal objection was t~gn_~~ts sion by ~~;.. Jl9JUl..-4_.::.c. Q.uns_~1~!p..r.:~~ell~. •• ,...~ --·'~i"".-·:-·-·~,-··~···,~--:-'·,,:···''''''r·'''·- .'''"--:. ----'~~.'"i-""I."'"\:<'" ,-,...-~,. -, ' ~ adm~s- '. That ~ -"'~~-~--~:"",,",, ••••.•.,..•...~.~.".' . . , " I , "': : .. ,.: ~." - " was the time when counselJrortheaPJ;lellant stated to the Court that his' client tur-e:~"·--'F-aiyu;;--t~d;-;;-;t~that i ~ , . " v :» 1--' should have ' repudiated her signa-· time aplounted to a tacit .......--.. ~ !:'<I;" : acknowledgementof her si~ature ding her from disputing Lts auth~nticity The following excerpt fro~'''EncYClopMie Dalloz. Droit ': at a later ~y the appellant preclu- stage. 1: ' \. - 3- Civil~ in point:- Verbo Preuve 1979 Edition •.paragraph 814 - is d 'une elle est le du lorsque l'acte Elle resulte notamment expressej peut-etre volontaire "814 ••••••• La reconnaissance ecritureprivee plus souvent tacite. silence garde par le souscripteur est produit en justice. t. 9, par Perrot No 12i~; Pigeonni~re, et Ripert t ? par Gabolde No 1481j t 12, par Esmein para 756 p 176). ment, la reconnaissance denegation ne peut se borner ! emettr~ des doutes.sur thenticite Slil ne desavoue pas formellemen~ il est repute la reconna1tre D. H. 1938. 226; cit.)." et Ripert,op. Planiol de la part du signataire pretendu, de son ecriture ou de sa signature. - (BeHdant et Lerebours Planiol . Aubry et Rau. Plus precise+ la signature, (Civ. 21 fevr. 1938 et.loc. resulte de llabsence de . qui l'au- ~rocedura.l r~~~~.~on -.,~.-..--..,......•.•.. ".-..,.,.-;..----.---"..=-- of .the writing ,~"'..---,._-'--..<-~•.••- to the authenticity ----.---~~.--., --- taken at the time whenJEe~~~£Y!!lell.t....i!. L ..-,....~-......,;~~.,~-""- duced in evidence if the issue as to authentici~~has _~?~.d~~E_~.~c:t;r. P~~~,_;:ll.i,l:l,~(Li-JL.~h~~.. E.!~a1~~g;J3· or s_~atlg'_~_..!Ilustbe sO\lght_.to ,be pro- .. ~.,.~.•..• -'" ...--....---.:.:...~.-.--.-.~.•.-,--.-''''''''~.~.-''' ••.__ C·i,.-.-. _,.~,."lY' ..•- ••.,_.p. •••_ •• "";. •••••.• _• ......-~_~,~•• "'- •. '"'"'_. __~_.. ,.'''., •.••~ •••."'>':"_ •.•.,._~_ .• ,'_ ••.••••••.•••••••..•,.- ••••••._-...~~,_~_~ ••.•.•.••••.•••• •.-----~,.."".. ....-..........., ••. :".:.. •. ~.~ ••.. - ',-,~ -.. _ A document under private signature has probative (Article '1322 ~aragraph force as against a par~y who is alleged to have .written so long as the party acknowledges or signed the document Court that the party wrote it or it is proved before·the or signed it, in which case the document is legally pre- sumed as acknowledged. the party for~ally repudiates ----- ture on the document, force of the document . suspended. untiJ....~oQf of authentici ty:is is temporarily '".!h..e i;s~;of 'iacie. ·as·~u·tiiI{~(~£~;E~:;!i~";le~~. a'u- ~~ilti~:!:.~£·~Yi~~d in limine~ litis,· if the point has been raised in the pleadings, ~thin document has been taken in the course of the trial. reason for the necessity ~l."Ll!l~JIt_,i,s;::::va...*,\!e-l-e.s·S-·!mUl of an early decision its authenticity 1). or signa- a trial, if objection to the prOduction the handwriting the probative as anissue of the -'---~ ...•.._r.' __ ,"",_.~~_ The is that the is established. - or,·~n a trial If . . ~~- - - - - .yf. authenti~it. Y ~t The bU:~~~E.~_9LI!;£92. L. Q!Ltl!.lL.is§:u_e 0lLt~~ ...;I>~J~. Y:.,WP. R.•W.a"P.:tJL:t<L.~YA:!:l.-.!l,j,!ILf?~.!'L. Qf.,..,,1llJt_~P~umer;.t. What is said above applies equ~lly in the case of heirs or assigns of a party who has allegedly written a documento far as repudiating may only declare that they do not recognise or signature ing excerpts from Encyclopedie in their case they need not go as Th~y th~ handwriting The follow- Dalloz. Droit Civil • (Article 1323). the handwriting of the party. or signature. or signed However , .•...; 'V~rbo Preuve 1979 Edition Paragraphs 815, 818 and 819 support the above propositions. 1181~••••••• S'il ne reconna1t pas la sincerite de l'acte, i1 doit la denier formellement. Cette denegation se fait par une simple decla- Elle surfit ! retirertprovisoirement ration. ~ l'acte toute force probante (~yon. 14 janv. 19~2, Mon. judo Lyon, 21 oct.). Provisoire- ~ent, car celui qui entend se prevaloir de 1'6- crit peut faire etablir la sincerite de celui- cien Gabolde, no. 1480; V. ~nfra. nos. 818 et B • justice (Planiol ~t . Ripert,t. 7. par ) •• e. 0 •• II taut supposer que celui ~ qui l'acte 818.· est oppose denie sa propre signature ou affirme ne pas recorina!tre celIe de son auteur: simple declaration ruine provisoirement 1'eff1- cacite probatoire de l'acte qui, jusqu'A preuve contraire, est repute ne pas emaner du signataire pretendu et donc'atre un faux (Com. 2 juin 197), Bull. civ. IV, no. 150). Mais une telle situa- tion ne doit pas durer: tivement la sincerite ou la taussete de l'acte et cette recherche doit se faire en justice (C. civ., art. 1324). i1 taut etablir objec- cette juin 196;, Bull. civ. I, no. ~9;t C'est au demandeur qui se prevaut de la 819~ sincerite de l'acte, et non au aefendeur qui nie ou meconna1t l'ecriture, qu'il incombe de prouver la verite de son affirmation (Civ. 21 fevr. 19;~ D. H. 1938.226;7 D. 1964, Somma 2: 12 nove 1969, Bull. civ. I, no. 339; 17 mai 1972, ibid. I, no. 1'32; Soc. 14 nova Com. 1er d~c. 1975, ibid. 1973, ibid. V. no. 567; IV. no 286). Mai$ il a ete juga que la verifica- tion en justice de l'ecriture devait ~tre ardonnee ou operee d'office par Ie juge, m~me lorsque lea parties n'y ant pas conclu civil·imposant une telle vJrification lorsqu'une Bon 6criture ou sa signature partie a des~oue (Soc. 13 juin1952, Bull. civ. III, no. 525)." l'article 1324 du code In this case the learned trial Judge was too lenien"t; to have entertained the submission of Mr. Boulle on~ehalr of the"appellant made at the ena of the case t~at the signature on Exhibit 7 was not the signature or the appe~lan"t;and to have taken the trouble to'make a decision However since th~ re~pondent thereon in his judgment. has not complained about such leniency, I haye reviewed the whole of the evidence on record, including the sig- natures of the appellant appearing on her defences in limine lit~s and to the amended plaint at pages G and H of the z-ecord , ample evidence both oral and document~ a proper and reasonable finding that the signature on Exhibit 7 was that of the appellant. I find that the learned Judge had The most telling on which to make ·, evidence, as the learned Judge pointed out)was the payment of the sum of R.1,500 by the appellant on 5, 1979 in strict compliance November of Exh1bit 7. could the ;..ppellanthave come to know 01' it and abide with the terms If that document were a forgery how by i~s terms? This ground of appeal must therefore fail. \ .\ ; Ground 2 The document" Exhibit 7, was typewritten offended and tne against s{gned it. That·document the appellant of Article 1326 of the Code in thatdPart in her appellant the provisions from her signature .own hand the formula followed learned trial Judge found that Article 1326 did not apply in this case as it fell within the exception pressed "valid for" or "approved for" by the amount in letters of the debt due. at the end of the Article, had not written narnely:- The ex- "This requirement and employees trade or employment." In dealing with the sUbmission shall not apply to tradesmin acting within the scope of their of counsel for the that the document, Exhibit 7, was invalid in! appellant terms of Article 1326 of the Code, the learned Judge had this to say:- ! "The defendant Mrs. Port-Louis was 'in fact the only "facell that eam Group and "Boutique des Jeunes" had and the only person who had represented' them in their dealings with the. plaintiff the lessor and lessee 't o the lease are "tradesmeri" in terms of Article 1326 and the defendant was acting within the scope of her trade or employment when she signed the note as suretyo has no application Article 1326 therefore to this case." company. Both this finding of t?e learned Judge is rather With respect, confused. "tradesman" "employee" she signed the note as sure~, take the case out of Article 1326. He did not find that the appellant was a acting within the scope of her trade or an acting within the scope of her. emplo~ent as would b~ necessary , when to The appellant signed Exhibit 7 in her personal name and capacity Although "tradesman" and not as agent on behalf of Carn Group. it is clear that Carn Group falls wi'thin the ~erm in Article 1326 as it was that private COlllpany .~ ~. t= ..... -: .. .• 'J.' \ r ~..t',. HI~~~l?-~r,s,selling articles to thefublic from the Boutri que . , ,I. . .: ,"}. :'. " ";,"":', t.:~i\"""r·;, '.,-:" "'{·~f\~"':;~·.,:.~'.. :'!'.. The following excezpb from J,~s,J~~~~~" the appellant as manager or agent of Cam QP9up w9uld not fall within that term, unless it were 1?~9'yed,tthat'she was a' "tradesman" Lndependen til.y from tp:a;t'pr~'vatecompany. P.~~;t9,z.•'~Juris-Classeur Civil Articles 1326-1327 (abr oge ) '~'i?;'"':~.~I'.. JJ::-:·'i t ";' '.:! Q,9u'\;:rats'et Obligations (En General) Fasc 141 Paragraph 4§"ji~'n£point. V~tr~~y~:Ca~s com'19 mai 1954: Bull civ. rrr, n , 187, '<;1) oi1' il ressort que Le gerant d I une societe A !{,~~I?onsabilitelimitee n I accomplissant pas en s:~ttequalite d'actes de commerce pour son propre eQmpte, la reconnaissance de dette qu'il a signee ~';,titrepersonnel ne beneficie pas de La derogation pI;'eVUeA 11article 1326, alinea 2 du Code civil." . "~~~l..;. ~~ere ~?no as a ~'~radesman"within the scope of her trade. • Can it be said that the appellant signed Exhibit 7 " .. 1" as an employee acting within the scope of her employment. Apart from'knowing from the evidence of Mrs. Gayon that t~e app~llant was the.manager of Boutique des Jeunes ~d acted as agent for Cam Group there is no evidence as ~9thelfPpellant's exact relationship with that private q.~mpany. In the circumstances therefore it cannot be s~id that the appellant 'would fall 'within the term "em- ployee"'and ~hat Article 1326 would not. apply to this ~ . c aae, evidence that the appellant signed Exhibit ? . .'.:. ~,~ 'It '. :.. . . )<; '4. :;. '.'" :;' !o . "".,:Mr. Shah submitted that as Exhibit? witnessed the 'obliga:~~onof suretyship which was a collateral obliga- tion to the principal contract of lease, Article 1326 d~~not·~ppiy to it. In support of'his submission he Code Civil Article ~ited Dalloz, Codes Annotes. Nouveau 1p;29P~agr,aph 64 which runs as follows:- "'64. Suivant un autre syst~me, l' art. 13,26 en consequence, .s'applique seulement au:¥;bbligationsprinci- pales, et non aux engagements accessoires, tels que Ie.cautionnement; Ie cautionnement fait par acte sous seing pi-ive'est valable, bien qu'ilne contienne pas Ie bon OU app~ouve, exige par l'art. 1326." We+~ par-agr-aphexpresses the minority view. :v:iewpowever is to be preferred as it is consonant with !"',. ~,~~wOJ,'dingof'paragraph 1 of Articl e 1326. 'v;ie~is contained in paragraph 58 01". Cit. as follows:- ", . ThefnajOrity The maj ority ~, , 0·· . "56. I D'apr~s l'opinion dominante, le caution- nement, constituant· un acte unilateral', de La part de la caution, n'est valable qu'autant qu'il est rev~tu du bon ou approuve exige par l'art. 1326.'~· Article 1326 of the Code must be taken to apply That does not mean that the document, in this case. Exhibit ?, is to be co~sidered null and void to all. intents and purposeso The document is valid as pro- viding initial proof under Article 1347 of the Code. Oral evidence and pr-eaumpt. Lonawould then complete the This has been achieved by proof 01" 1;hetransaction •. the evidence of Mrs~ . Gayon and the production of 1;he (Vide RaYfield v , Temooljee & doc.ument,. Exhibit 7 ~ Co Ltd 1963 M. R. 21, 35 to 37). passage from Dalloz,. Nouveau Repertoire Pratique, Verbo Preuve, p~ragraph 17~uoted is illuminating. The following in the Rayfield case (supra) "8'il existe un commencement de preuve par ecrit, la preuve testimoniale, ou par presomptions, est admissible •••••••• Puisque la ~reuve par presomp- tions devient possible, Ie commencement ~e preuve· par ecrit equival;1t·,en realite, A une preuve com- plete toutes les fois que Ie juge l'estime suffi- Cependant il pres4nte avec l'acte .instru-· santo mentaire regulier cette difference essentielle ' qu'il peut ~tre combattu non seulement par un autre ecrit mais encore par temoins ou presomptions ~.•••••II In this caSe the·document,. Exhibit 7, as completed by the evidence of l1rs. Gayon which stands uncontradicted establishes the indebtedness of.the appellant towards the responden't;. There is therefore no merit in this ground of appeal •. Ground 3 ~ v, This ground of appeal complains .ab~1::the. following passage of the learned judge •s judgment:.':'; "Mr. Boulle has made a number of submissions .with r.egard to the amount for which his:client is lia.ble on the note in the event of her be;i.ngliable at all. The main point he 'has submitted is .that' only the sum outstanding as at October 5, 1979 less payment 'is payable. ment in the face of the wording of·the note itself wh.ich is clear that the promisor "(undertook) to repay all sums which remain due and outstanding by virtue of an:.underpayment of the rental and charges under a leas~ agreement with Central Stores De~ velopment Limited for' the shop No 1 in Victoria House Arcade." I do not think I can sustain thi s aI7gu- • . i ., . i .~ I ': . i '/ j: .1 . v • ;"' ~.... ',~:.'t~:)N,':;~;~~~~~'I·~~~iflfx~~~'ji~(1"I#'~~~1~"V;'~"Ji;~~-:.r.~~~~.~~ . >:,.:.;;:,.'i;;t~.i.it:. ti..\il& ""'.':i!').:)l;,A.)J., ' ..~JIi:~\~~~£~. s I~:)~'~ .. '." In other.~words the:le~f~~?-·~:::,ialJudge.held that when ' '\ the.appepan;t signed Exhibit .7..shewas undertaking to .pay all past as well as fu.ture arrears of.rental and . charges. incurred by Cam Gr~up under the lease agree- . , . mente ,."'. ..... '.' ". .. . I • . With respect this interpre~ation of the document i· . Exhibit 7 does not accord with its wording and with the evidence given by Mrs. Gayon on behalf of the respondent. Mrs. Gay~n said:- . i :". • ",'J ' . ;. •• _ ~ .•. . '. • , I "The tenant was not regular with the rent and ser- vice charge. to !the tenant on 5/9/79 and the claim was R.73,623.74 cts. and it was despatched to the Exh. 3." tenan't.· I produce the statemento 'Statement of account'was submitted and later !.•. lIA.fterthe statement' of 5th September 1979, Exh. 3., This was registered on the 8th October. I~ is upon.that note that the company is Mrs.: Port.-Louis ai.gneda note to undertake to pay all underpayments of the rental charges under the lease. Exh.! 7. now .claiming the sum of money from Mrs. Adelina Port-Louis. II It is to be observed t~at Exhibit 7 is made tip'of the document signed by the appellant and of a copy of the which had been sent to the appellant statement ~ibit'3 on the 5th'September/1979~ The document·specifies.that the repay1nent will be('by'monthly i~st~l,.ine~tsof R.1, 500 with effect fr,omthe first day of October 1979. .. . From the above it is clear that the appellant in on'the '5th"October 1979 undertook to signing EXhibit? repay the sum of R.73,623.?4.aa set out in the' statement," ", , . Exhibit 3. This was "inclusive of rent and service' charges up to and including the month of Septe~ber'19?9~ There is no eviqence on which it can be held that '. i ~.; '.' 1 I . •.•. .:. .' the personal undertak~ng of the appellan'tin ~he document, Exhibit 7, was substituted for and extinguished the deb't which Cam Group had.towards theresponderit for ar:rears of ren~ and Fervi~e.,c~~z:~.~.~~'~? 'a~~ ~Il~lud.i~. Se.ptember. 1979.·In was effected as pro~:rd~dfor.under the second p~agr~ph Article 12?1'of the·Code. the 'Code novauLon inten~ion to effect novation does not clearly result from Exhibit? other 'wordsthere' is'rio'evidence that'a novation of dhati'not be'pre.sumed. : Moreover an: and the evidence of Mrs. Gayon; According to Article 1273 of . . •.•. •.•.• ,.:' . '.' '. . • • • ~ '. ~iIlI..·. "'10 , '\ I I -;.;: "0 " f': ; .. • to ~. , .', •. ~ i I . '....; In 'the '·circumstances therei'ar'e, . the evidence is to , ! the effec,t that the app~llant acted as surety towards .::the' resporident , wh,ich,O~ Group had 'contrl1cted und~r the lease agreement, 2011 qi' ii' CamGroup i'ailed'topa~ ~uch debt. (Article . for the outstanding deb't of Ro?3.623.74 . theCode'j ~ , The question which now~rises 't , , . is whether the payment ' :" "by the appellant oi' ~he sum 01.',,' R.::J, 500 on 5th' Nove¥1ber 19'79 and the' sum '~f'~~,14:~~~••46 aft~r December 197'9" has' any ei'fect on the o~~fgation she contracted respondent towards the " ' in Exhibit, 7l . .. ,. '. ". .' . Cam Group vacated the shop pre~ises ";J;h,eywere • ,. .. d;tails i'romthe sum oi' R.73,623.74, from the responden~ at in Exhibit 3"they charge i'Qr should be observ~d that ~he mbnthly rate of ren~ and the end ~t ~cember 1979• o~ which are i then owed the respondent rent the months 01.' October, November renting Apart set out and service and December 1979 amoun~ing to the sum 01.' R.14,801.46. It service ing to R.4,933.82 per month., amount- .. appr-opz-LatLon 01.' payme~ts~ , 'These Artic~es~ apply in the case where the same d~btorowes dii'i'erent •. same creti?:-tor. necess8XY.:;:todel;'e.r1ni~'eto which deD~ the payment Jis to, debts to the . 'When~the debbor- makes part payment it 12~3 to 1256,pi' the Code·4eal w,~th the ch~rge during the year 1979 was constant, Articles .' .•..i· is ~ . be apprQpriated. ,wording oi-the It ~hoU1d be observed here that the first'~aragraph'of J..... .., Article 1256 of/the Code :. from the Trench version' of the: Civil Code -- is diff~rent au i:u l0~'C<.;: bc:ioy',:; been a ~istake made as .t,~ the. meaning 01.' "interet" the Fr~nch text. Fortunately case. '1. {1976. ,:,; this has no ei'i'ect on this I bei i evc UHf('" musc have in IJtthis case we are faced with the following problems:- (a) (b) , There'were t~ The 'appellant (i) (ii) . i~ her oWll,name; and r as agent of CamGroup• l ' debtors, CamGroup and ~he ~ppellanto acted in 'tw~ capaciliies: •• (c) Cam'Gz-ouphad several d~,bts towards the respondent, • tha'\:i,is, under. t4e lease agz-eemerrt at the beginning of every month~the' monthly, rent and' servic e charge became due. and did ,not bear'!"'intere~t. The C:!. PP'ellanthad" only ::l~. • Those deb::it~were of the same nature " !~, , towardS tlae'i'espondent one debt Cd) ." .' ' ..' ., " " .(~, r.: '''''' J,<., ! " f ( .. , .•..• , e " , ... " '1' ,; ::.' ., . ", ...•• ". . >',; ",:,,::,~,;~,.~'jd~~,/~~rr~"';":f:;';;~;":""",,~'C:', ' , ,', .' "'" " ' i, "",'." ;: ;,,~.:,,;-;:;:,,';(.',\;~r~~ifl,~iil " , I,W.' ". - . . . \'. .: .. " ... , ".' I -c~~t is" she 'was,responsible. ' if' CamGroup did not pay 0 , the ''respondent "me~t '~.f that debt' was to be e.ffected at t,J,.,.ayR.-?3,6~3~74 t<il '~ The, pay- . the rat~_ Of; . ; '1~ . , ' , ' ',R.1,,500 as, f~om 1.10.1979. r ~hall dea;L.with th~ first \ payment {)f R.1,500 Oil. .; !rhe ,~6unt paid and' the date of payme~t ~,~ 5.11.1,979'0' 'cann()t but poirltt~' comp\:r'~i tb. th.e .t'erms of ,'her undel:'teJdng in Exhibit 7•.•~':'::' e s~ch paymellt"to .t~,: ' ii3,; therefo.;;,E}-:righ~ to appz-opa-Lat of the appellant an intention ."It,' Pbers~:~11debt Of'~,~he.appellant a ov.e. ' , ~ention~d, in;par.ag'rap~'(~) " ~ ", ;. I inowturn to t~e payment of R.14,8b1.46 atter De- ! . . all charge at an~ service the rate prevailing That payment was in resIfect of 3 months cember 1'979. . through rent 1979. the pay- rrom Exhibits 8 and 9 one can deduce that ment of ~.14,801.46 wa~ made before the 6th February 1980 which wa;s the date o:f ~e letter, date onl~ R.4,500 wa~d~e,~bYvirtue 7. persona~l undert~ing~n to! infer right shej\oias actill'$.pn behalf of c~:nGrolfp and not ,~n",her that when>t'he appellant was paying., that or the appellant's is there~pre ~, Exhibit 9. On that ~hibit SUDJ, It capaci~l. ~he was then. paying the arre~s own personal ,o:f r~ent and serv;i.cevchar-ge under the 'lease ~greement 'on ot; CamGroupo, The question then a.fises behalf which m'o~ths mustth&'appropriation It Code apply, as there :is no evd.dence that appellant when, she made payment qf that intencl<;d:to discha:r.ge", as she 'viae eut i, t l ():J , pZ'ovisions of Article sum declared which debts is ;t:ftE:lrethat.th~ ofthe'~ayment 'C'-:' do und ez- 1256 of 'the she alii ,k ·.f . ' ' : . , to be'made? ! ' Al''i;icl",: bearing':~ny indicay'f;on as,.to apprd'priation. and -ne -12)), receipt \'/as pa-oduc ed .i~1 C!ViUcllCO ~. of' CamG~OUP.for i' qf rent In'iterms Of":. J..ticle:,1256, the'debts an.d'service' char-ge being 'of the same na- appropria- al though acc~\led ,du'J,a~ di:fferent ..•. that arrears ture, the~oldest, tion mus~ be made for in Exhibit 3 rather within the statement of Oc tiobar , November and,J)ecember 1979. That being'tthe . " , case the !sumof R.14-;B01.46 must alab be deducted from R.73,623.'.?f·l In'Jhe is indebted to ,the is those falling the appellant than for . . ~ dates, resuit .,. .' .: I I • ~t. . . responden~ under tl;ie, document; Exhibit 7, to the extent o.f R. 57, 3~?280nlY. ;0 ••• '::" ' ,f. " • " r the months ,,;'., " ....• ' : •••• c I " :1 -',.; :]~ ;.,i :~ ....... ~'.~ ,', ! ...• . ; I ' " , ~~~f~{~f. t)/:; , 0' :-. ,I, ,I I , , I would ,allow the appeal .on ground 3 anCl order ' ,thatt'he ,judgment o! the Supreme Court be amended by substituting of R.67,189.92. to fp'ay half: the appellant' 5 costa of this appe a. L , R.57,322.28 for the sum the.~um,of ' I would also order the resp~ndent . ;' (,~ ,'~ {/ L'C . C.'f) . Aj ,It ~II', III,.. : /. /: 'I: , . .~) c· . .: )'1') /fi" , ( .c ; vI... :.1,/ . /...- _. :'.. ( : ."..... . , • i I , , l . \ .~ ' -:', ;1 , . , '. T. u ... , , Justice , A', C;;af-C2:~ A. Sauzier ~ of Appeal :" .. .".. .. ' • t • .1 .t, ',' .. '" '~ .. ..~. .',', 'I., -. .~,. } ". It ". r. ,' I <, ;'1 ". ~'. f ..~. " :'. ; , ,I ..., ;"~~ I o , . ~~*"",J~';'. Q!<::::~'...::,.'(" ~"';/~;+:t}~·~.,~.t· .';1:('.~~~ '.;. I COURT . ·IN. THE'SEYCHFJJLES . :. . . ". Ad'e~i~ Port' ~ui,s .••• _ y •.. I.. . .'. • .' ••• .- - . Appellant , '.. .....:..~~..: .·:;.-~tral ,.... " stofe.s. ~ ~velopnient.) L:imite~~~Qndent •...•.. ,~ '';-CivilAppeal • s- "'... No. 1'0 of 1984• • I can u5etu~y add. ·1 • As.regards . the first ground of appeal, it claims that· the of the 'appellant-'s , authenticity on a written promise to :. pay debts lo\dng to i1he respondent companyby the Cam Group was u •. The amended plaint not established onta balance of prqbabilities signature ". . . . ! . : -',. ~,. - . ·;t···:-:..-:"'··:·· had specitically I pl~ded that • •• . the appellant had signed that doc- ument detJd the 5tn~october,1919. This "allegation was not 4en~~d fonnallY in the derence; and must be taken to have been' adinitte<f· . stevenson-Delhomme, S. L. R. Vo1.1, 1955:, page.... ( see t-ullery -v- . . '. 283 at page 296.) "" 'Ihe appellant, had a further . . . '. A'" opportunity -to . '. .. .....• repudiate .her signature when:the. document was';~endered .... Ln eyit:i~~c'e, but did n6t do so ••.. 'Ihe.'issue ''did np~' then have to· be deci.ded , . ;, .. II si Le defendellr,'garde Le silence, . La piece est tenuepour ~. , ...• :. . . . . ~.-. .- reconnue. h There is no merit •• .." in:kD this ground of' appeal, nort e , •. ••• in the second gro~~~ challenging the f~~ing~as .acting ~th:i:nthe', ! ." .'. . I,,~I~ c+P~~ 'j' scope of her employment when she ~igned the document as surety for' t!'I" ,bt·[.., r.'T~ :'., l' ",n,:jlo·,ers•. . 'nlere \.m.~ :~. IIPlp. (1I\,~:mi·.r,:!rnC·t.l~d·f'v:!.- , . ., .• , I· " ..;. J ~.t, j/iU~::L be l''::!'~,:r~'.: '" I . ! ... ~. r , Jill. no r, .::''i,~ :;vi;;.;;nce, or c~l~ \sLtnes ses , to r-ebu c t["j(: e'f:i.al:;"oc agaf.nat, her-, althou,gh ~h~.was ap~~ntlY available to do '50. e , The:tkird. ground ofappeal~that the judge~s finding that •• . . . the appellant was iiable. for rent and charges incurred by' the • lessee (·}ae. Carn,Q~U~.).~fter the date of the note s~gnedby per was wronriand unrBaso~ble. ~ The' appellant, on 5th~October~1919, . had undertaken to repay II all • .....• I ,~" sums which remain due and p~tstalld- , • . A - :~ "'i i \ I~ , , .• ~, '. \. , ..• .";< " ",