Jonga v Napolo Ukana Breweries Ltd (Civil Cause 1418 of 1992) [1993] MWHCCiv 34 (18 May 1993)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI PRINCIPAL REGISTRY CIVIL CAUSE N0.1418 OF 1992 JONGA (MALE) PLAIN TI FF - and - UKANA BREWERIES LIMITED DEFEN DANT MWAUNGULU, REGISTRAR Mandala , Counsel fur the Plaintiff Ka s ambaJa, Cuunsel for the Dc [ c nrl;crnt 0 R D E R iu lf 'Y I .} This is a summons by the plaintiff for summary ju dgm e nt } der 14 of the Ru l es of the Supreme Court. For r easons } 11 be apparent later, it may be important to repr oduce :,1l rule 3 ( l) : "!i, 1 11 Unless on the hearing of an application under ru l e l either the Court dismisses the application or th e d e fendant satisfies the Court wi th respect of th e claim or part of the claim, to which the applic ation r e lates that there is an issue or question in di spute which ought to be tried or that there ought for some other reason tu be a trial of that claim or part, the Court may give such judgment for the plaintiff against that defendant on that claim or part as may be j ust having regard to the nature of the remedy or r e l ief claimed. 11 ,.vision altered the practice on summary judgment s which f ted for over a c e ntury. Prior to this rule the f f had to show that the defendant had no defence or the ,·. F t had to show that there was an issue or questi o n in -~ Under Ord e r 14 rule 3(1), however, the Court may d e ny pl ntiff his entitlement to judgment even where th e . a.'li) t has raised no substantial issue provided 11 that ther e ii ar ''"10 1 -~o 6gtr tJ.i h r some other reason to be a trj_a l of that claim or / j Th e r e are aff1. davi ts in support and in opposition to pJ ication. 2/ .... - ? - , Th e p l ai nti ff wa s appointed Ma nagi n g Director uf th e nt Co mpan y in January, 19 89 . He was o n e of th e a l sha r e h o ld ers . He so ld hi s s har es in th e Company. On h of Nove mb er , 1 992 h e to o k out thi s act i o n tu claim ation am o un ting tu K5 3 , 69 3 . 9 2 , bein g su ms due to him . was a Dir ector of the d efe ndant Company. Hi s clajm i s n a managem~nt me e tin g th a t 1989 wh e r e 1t was re so lved that Directors wo ul d be d to hou se rent of Kl , 000 . 00 p e r mo nth and tel e phon e s of up to K750.00 p e r month . Wh e n h e retir ed from t h e rship in 1990 h e wrote to the Comp a ny o n 25t h of Ma r c h, man di ng t h e moni es . All these is s u es arc rais e d 1n th e ff' s s t ate ment ur claim . t oo k place o n the 31st u f ;!f; ,~ Th e dcfendant.s pu t. 1n an a me nded defence 1-n wh1-ch Lh cy ~d that t h e pJa 1nL 1ff was their Man aging Dir ector aL so me ~ ~ -~~- .~ f,Th ey d e ny that th e r e was a mee tin g o n 3 1 st Mar c h >i?'l:.~'$}::Jly-~ ng that the s ums c laim e d by the pl a jntiff be paid t u Th e y a lso claim that t h e sum of ~~;-,qecto r s of the Company. +:}5,~ •}:,~,?X - OO ap p ea rin g in the Dir ect ors Accoun t wa s a ploy to Th ey also a lleg e that th e pl ai ntif f who i g':. ~ r eva de tax. ~•ear' 7. min ded it and promulgated, thi s was a ware t h at no mo ni es l j/ ~e paid out tu Dir ectors . Ther e is a co un ter - claim 1n ··c,;.h j h e d c fendan ts arc c l a 1min g th e sum of KS, 000. 00 fo r a the p laintiff took away wh e n leaving th e Th ere is also a claim for KS, 0 75 .14, b e in g a_nt Co mpany. 1~unt the defendant paid on t h e plaintiff's behalf wh e n ~riff e x ec ut ed against the plaintiff . • .lfJ}• '~ :\; Th e a ffidav its in support of the a ppl ication and i n it,ril;>;:t,o r vehicle wh ic h i:.s!P'. , ,' ~- !:W f ion to th e application v e rify the facts as postulat e d in I n my v i e w , u n con di ti o n al l e ave to defend ' ' .1,( • ~ . ,fl I think I state th e d e fe nd ant t h e right . to d e f e nd hims e l f so that th e il" ~l\ ?[l'f(i ·i e gj_v e n to t h e defendant. t:prin'~ J.1le co rr ectly when 1 say that where th e r e is seriou s , di sp:ut GJ a s to the facts i n a particular case the rightful ):·~. OU£;.$~. l is not to give th e plaintiff the judgme nt but rath e r ~giy1~l t.) 'plai[kt l ·ff ca n clearly establish his case a nd t h e Court b e g iv e n ·,/ he1!9'p qp r tuni ty to d e cide the fact after h eari ng the defendan t I .and ·wtth . plaintiff . L,kno.wn:, . bu t if any aut hor i ty is n ee d e d th e n Saw v. Hack in ( 1 8 8 9 ) _' 5~,'I,\L I i t 7 2 is suc h a uth o ri ty . ~¥.., ';.';{\. ~!i:1-<,": ~pf ~he 13lst o f March , 1 9 89 . On the fac e o f it Directors of a ~90.mpap~ cannot c laim remuneration. Dunst o n v . Imperial Gas ,, . · In this cas e th e c l ai m i s based on a mana ge me nt mc e tin g t h ought that this is well l! Ligh~ ~and Coke Co mp a ny (1831) 3 Band Ald. 1 25 ; Harton v. We s t 0Coc~ ~R~ilways (1883) 23 Ch . D 654 , 672. But the Articles o f t. 1:f.\'ss0:0i1tion usu a lly provi de remuneration to Di re c tors. ,~ca,s~ttft e Articl e s of As s oc i at ion did so provide. l. · ,\ :.t1t f' In thi s to I wo uld hav e It app ea r s J t o . ' ,: . . p · e~ 1:!i ~ad in gs . 3/ .. .. . A ;,•! " :i . ;, .-,."'. ~., n: ,t-,:., .f. ~ ... ::_~ -~.,. ;f .·; • ;;~~ ,,,? '·~-... 1' rf ! , . ,, ,;..,, - - ,. i~. JI\ -~, ,' _I')\""·.,> 'q , .. ,.,•~, the t;~ '~ r ea l i ss u c to s u e h i n tl; nd e d . L KB 47Ll, t u dc, fend . un arg uabl e in Ui c urw I (car t h e app l icat1. un . t h e Court s huuld t h at I would n ut t o th at Lhc 1 r , h o we v e r, Lh c l eg a l iss u e wh1 c h ti;le n the r e mu st b e a ( Co w v. Ca sey (1 949) th at l ac I< o r c Jar 1 ty in t h o u g h t , a n d I dun' t I mu st cu n fcss t ha t it mu s t have b ee n o b v i o u s t h at t h e " pla 1n t iff wo uld n o t have l cgal J_ ss u e th at Ar t icl es o f Assoc i at i on would I wo uld h a ve th o ught t hj s is a v ery r e mun c rat1 un If t h at is t h e r esol uti o n duly passed by t h e Cmnpany ~lrr.i: !D ''#~. '.:':'f ·~ ~?t im,_~_'4'J )}<if_ t h is 1 s wh nL L~w plcu11l.1 f f WcJ. nL c d Lu c-,ay \ P~~ad1ng i n paragraph 2 . Thi s see ms to be co n fir med by }pl·~,.ag'r-ap h 2(b ) of the affi d avit i n s u p por t o f !T.g~f-ctJif e nd a n t , h o wcve r, too l< ~pari,9-gr aph 2 of the s ta teme n t of c l ai m, h e ,,P!1_9_8'lft;tand wh y , 1s 3 sc r 1o u s f~ S~ql,v ~1 • t,d~ftnctan t 'A'P.ticles of Assoc i ation wo uld get r e mun e r atio n. Assu mi n g that V- ~~ ;vas 1;;1 n fact a fr:119\Bl·vti1. r e mu n e r at i o n, "'s"I'M le Jih egaJ qu cs tion a n d wh u l y ;.[l}i'7e ·, gi¼c n lea v e f9} l owcd a nd app l 1cd j n E:urup ea n As i a n Ban_~ /\ G v. Pun j__;-::.l_l'~ ,4,8 .. ~~• Man q · $i nd Ban k Nu . 2 Th lc Ar t 1c\(; S ( J 9U:3 ) 2 /\11 E. R. SOS , S J b . J ';of, Associatl.lm , accu r cJ1 n g Lu Lh c p l ea din gs a n d Lh c a f C1da v 1 l. r;, 7P·r,}Slrict€{ d for rc mun e r a L1on. Ar L1. c l es of Assoc1at1.o n cu mmunJy ;p '· o"'. Vide: t h at Di. re c l: ors s h a J l b e e n t 1 tl e d ~'.a 'i:r'.'):st1al-l b e vote d to th e m a t a ge n e r a l meeti n g . t p'a ,e;e J;1:~-&~that~· e ff ec t. l!f"" ? :{~~1f sh~rc h olde r s ent1 Ll ed Lu at.te nd a nd v ote at a ge n erc. J l ~m.~_~in g , this h as t h e same e f fec t a s a ibb Y}"'rthe , Co mpan y a t a ge n era l meet ing. Re : Du o ma t i c L t d . !ch J 365 an d Ca n e v . Jo n es a nd Ot h e rs (1981) 1§>3.~- ·. _ I n some ca s es , h oweve r, th e ! agh;rovtn g the acco u nts may b e s uffi c i e nt a u t h o r izat i o n, so long ;~a$, ~ the -'. me mb e r s a r e a wa r e f ~. D~ ;-~ coun ts, t h ey arc a l so b e in g ask e d to a pprove th e ~,t'~U\Uhe.ratio n. ~gif!~-.r1-A. JJ . It j_s n ot c l ea r f p'l'ead ;lr}gs o r ,~f. 1 . . tftvote~.' at a ge n er al mee t ing . .\cas~ : t a t pro b a bl y f~we}.l:'\bl\ , as 1 s alw ays th e cas e , tha t r e mun eration i1to ~~ . 1 ai d t? OJ. c tors 1. s a ma tte r o f intern a l ma n age me n t. That 't was t~th ~ · case ,,t(Bu rl and v . Ea rl (190 2 ) A. C. p age 83 , No rm andy v. ~}:Ind .~Woo p e a nd Co . L td . /j'' the ,,\~ i s'pu te a ri ses -:--·- 1'~~-- jH ~ man~ie~e n t meeti n g he ld o n 31 st Mar c h, ,-·s1gn /id '}by t h e p l aintif f as Ch ai rman a nd a Mrs A . A . Bowler as tt secr:e t q,I'Y . L b ec aus Q th e Boa rd was to b e in fo rm e d of th is meet in g . i~minub:~s. of t h is meeti n g s h o w t h at th e - ~il l s ~ ~ e r e to b e paid b y f~Jf thi s was a ll, I wo ul d h a v e gi ven judgm e n t 1rrhe,;?,.e11.e n da n ts , h o we ve r, d :Lsp u tc th l; a uth e n t ic ity o f iii l <+-~'I . ~if ~ , ;fi ~ ,, ., ,\·~i:· '! i ::i{i};.: .f. Th e p l a in tiff h as e xhi b i te d th e mi nut es o f, I It d oes appea r as t his wa s n ot a Board mee tin g The ( Felix Had l ey a n d Co . Ltd. v . Had l ey (1 897) A. C. f o r p ur poses of t hi s Th e case mi g h t very ( . I. 90 8) J Ch. page 8 4) . Thi s is wh c re t h e Co mpany a s th e p lai n t i ff claims. t h ink, a Th e mi n utes arc th e plaintiff. t h ese r c mun e r a l: Jun 1s appr uvcd by to me in this case , e1 th e r t hat t hey ar e be i n g a s k e d r e s o luti o n of t h e me mber s r e n ta l a nd t h e teleph o n e t h e affi d avits , wh et h e r r e mun er at io n was to be r esolut i o n du ly pa ss e d l All E . R . at page I may co n c ed e the a mount o f t hi s was n o t .1i~ .... 'i\c r l.,_;;: ,.}- ,, ,, j".~\ •itt ·,_1-..,·. I' t o apporv e th e cas e . f r om the ( 1 969) 2 .1.98 9 . f o r ,ti • C " ); . .. . -~ 4/ .... G!, _tt.,::. ~- :;f,, - - 1 • f A /, ·I:' They hav e proffer e d another set of signatu r es Lo .· \~ s. Th ey state that the signature of the . secretary is not , ~ne . ~ ~ t :~ff-iJ)Ve this . ilJ,'efilp took place at all. They co nt e nd that the actual me l~t1n g .,he~~f: the amo unt of remuneration was decided touk place on th e OtH~f January, 1990. There, there was no suggest1on that ~ ~,~"'\;--~: Th e defendants further alleg e that this meet 1 ng 1:epbone b 1 l ls would be pa1 d. Of course, they do not se e m tu ~~pµ~e that the r e ntals of Kl,000 . 00 wer e payable . ; ff~e,nd, h o wever, that those r e nts were paid to the plaintiff ~c9ra ing to their journal/ledge r e ntri es . They have pr uduced h e ~mjnutes of th e same me eti n g. ennoJ be resolved by l oo kin g at the affidavits. Th e matter · µ$t . io to full tri a l so th a t In my view, this di sput e the plaintiff ca n b e Th ey •) . ' , ·~•'> :.k c:r.o.~sfe xam1ned un these matters . Thes e are ['ac Ls whj_ ch by :i,f~,ne1r;.:i naturc c nt1tl c ft:!'P. Jiai n.t if f. : ~•' th e d efe nd a nt to 1ntcrr·ugat c ' .. ifi :~i! ~ ~ Th e re is more than that. The plaintiffs are claiming a further sum of K29,397.00 as money standing to th e ir account which , the de f e ndan ts must pay. This mon ey j_ndeed se e ms to be s panding to the pl ai nt if f ' s account according tu t h e f1n al the '.>I • . . ·- •.. aqcougts pre par ed by th e d e fendants' Account ants , Graham Carr & .. !-,r tV;JJ:pmp a ny . The defendants argued t h at this money was in fact not ~!~~yable t o the plaintiff. They argue that the money wa s put · ·tito;; t he Directors Account just to inflate t h e lj_abil1 ty of the 8mpany in order t o evade tax. They contend that 1t wa s very ' ~·-,, Jii-:~ .' .. - 1,ec;r ·;to a ll Dirccturs including th e plaint1ff that these {~l»?11l.e~J; would n ot. b e, payable. it~ wh~,qp ~ithe pl a1 n t1 ff shou ld be in te rroga ted. ·· otten;· Heim (1878) 2 6 WR 362. ,· 'i-':11\~~1 As I point ed out at the beginning, there are some I . - Se e Har r 1 son v. th1.nk that these are mat ters on ,,f,mag~:Cal wo rds t hat hav e been introduced in rule 3( l) of Order t- 0 14: .. nthat ther e ou g ht fo r so me other reason to be a trial". .]\ Mil'es •ti\f . Bul l In (1968) 3 All E . R. 632, 637 Mcgar ry, J . consj_dered :i~ th::i f ~{ect of thes e n ew words . He said at page 637: Si,c' ''.it,· ,. ,.•S¥.~ _'.p "If th e def e ndant cannot point to a specific issu e the Court that the re are circumstanc es that ought th e n I think those concludin g to b e inv es ti gated , '•·~ ·· ! which ought to be tried, but neve rth e less satis fies /ifr.~·. e,;. ·.;,i.{ii, ,I; ~~-j wor ds are inv o lved. There are cases wh e n .:t;J;\. ~ plaintiff o u ght to be put to strict pn)of of hj_s l 1} ~ , ;,i;~\; ~ ;'~)k j f, ·.~;;,,. ....... ~i;.,, r·· ~·~}/;: kin t hi s ca se if the m1nutes of the me eting in whi ch the iff relics arc qu es tionable then this is a matt e r that cla im, and exposed to full investi gation possibl e at a trial; and in suc h cases it would, in my judgme nt, be wrong to e nter summary judgment for the pla int j_ff ." t h e S/ . ... - s - ' " ',· ?, , ,,, .' fC ·_g; full 1nve s ti g aL1 lrn aL Lh e trial . 1 it , i'.a} th a n that. I f, as t h e def e ndants all eg e In thjf, cu se th l: r'( : th at ce rt a in t h e DJ r ec t o rs Account s to in f lat e t o evad e or a void tax and 1t wa s not th ese rn o rn e s wo uld b e paid out to th e Di r ec t u r s [11Q .!1~,{l•~0 e r e put 1n to Ul \' at:, f.f :1,\ty in ordt-' r i\n'tenctfct th a t and that th e pl a int if f h i mse lf mast e r-mind e d that d ecis i on , 1t ,) .s , diff.icult to S l; \o h o w h e s hould clai m that mon e y on s umm ary , judgme nt wi t hout fully inquirin g wh e t her thi s wa s so . hT\_y; • i.e Wi.' wo uld b e cov e r e d by th e final words in Ord e r 14 rul e •~ _(_). """ ,\.' Th i s , I. in Finally, th e r e 1 s a c o unt e r-claim to th e plaintif f ' s Th e c laim is in f a ct co nnected to th e pl a in t iff' s to ge t dues p a yabl e to him wh e n h e was a He want s Th e Co mp a n y is allcgj_n g ·' ni'rector of th8 Comp a ny. awfy with him Co mp a n y pr ope rty a nd at one s t a g e th a t h e Lo uk t h e Co mpany had : to J bail him out wh e n th e S heriff' cam e . J pr9perly r e late to the p l aintiff ' s actio n. ~Barrett (1 8 8 2 ) 26 S J 657 Lo rd Justic e Cott o n ob se rv e d ·although a c o unt e r- c l a im \·ought to b e treated as a defence: for purposes of Ord e r 1 4 . I think thes e c l aim s In Zocdan Co. v . i s for many purposes a cro ss - c l ai m it t h at I wo uld, th e r e f o r e , dj s miss the application 1n t h 1 s e _ ~nd g iv e uncond1t1 o n a l leave to the d e f e nd a nt t o def e nd ti o n . ! ! < .,,. , t Within 14 d a y s ts , Of d o cuments v e rifi 8 d by affidavits . This will b e ~ ~ ~~d by inspecti o n 14 days the r eafter . ~ ~ o ~n b y 30 th Jun e , 19 93 . The case will b e tr ie d b y a Judg e th e r e wi 11 b e disc o v e ry by e x c h a n g e o f Th e c as e s h o ul d b e t a jury at th e Principal Registry. ' r ' • Th e p a rti es ca n ap p e al t o the Jud ge 1n Ch a mb e r s . 1n Ch a mb e r s o n this 1 8t h day of Ma y , 1 993 , at . . -\ -- ... - - -- -------.. --- ' ' / ,/ I ' I · . I ·· REGI S_TR-AiZ -) , ' (