Lisenyeho v Mahlomolatoki (CIV/APN 431 of 96) [1997] LSHC 16 (6 February 1997)

CIV/APN/431/96 IN T HE H I GH C O U RT OF L E S O T HO In the application of: J U L I ET L I S E N Y E HO Applicant a nd M A H L O M O L A T O KI Respondent J U D G E M E NT D e l i v e r ed by the H o n. M r. Justice B . K. M o l ai on the 6th D ay of F e b r u a r y. 1 9 9 7. T h is is t he e x t e n d ed return d ay of a R u le Nisi obtained by the applicant against the r e s p o n d e nt a nd calling u p on the latter to s h ow c a u s e, if a n y, w h y :- 1 .(a) the n o r m al f o r ms a nd periods of notice p r o v i d ed by the rules of court shall not be d i s p e n s ed w i th a nd this matter treated as o ne requiring urgent attention. ( b) the r e s p o n d e nt shall n ot be directed forthwith to deliver to the applicant t h r o u gh the Sheriff or his D e p u ty a T O Y O TA HI - A CE 2.2 S u p er 16 E n g i ne N o. 4 Y 0 1 7 2 9 40 a nd C h a s s is N o. Y H 6 3 8 9 0 0 3 2 95 w h o se current registration n u m b e rs are A J 4 4 1. © failing the return thereof to the applicant, the sheriff or his D e p u ty shall not be authorised a nd directed to take possession of (he vehicle w h e r e v er the s a me m ay be f o u nd a nd deliver it forthwith to the applicant. ( d) the r e s p o n d e nt shall n ot p ay costs of this application on the scale b e t w e en attorney a nd client. (e) the applicant shall n ot be granted further a n d / or alternative relief. 2. p e n d i ng the return d a y, the o r d er in t e r ms of l(a), (b) a nd © shall not o p e r a te as an interim o r d er w i th i m m e d i a te effect. T he r e s p o n d e nt intimated intention to o p p o se c o n f i r m a t i on of the R u le Nisi. Affidavits w e re d u ly filed by the parties. T he facts, disclosed by the f o u n d i ng affidavit, w e re that in J u n e, 1 9 96 h er sister-in-law a nd the r e s p o n d e nt w e nt to the applicant in J o h a n n e s b u rg - the R e p u b l ic of south Africa. T he r e s p o n d e nt e x p r e s s ed a w i sh to p u r c h a se a c o m bi for a taxi transport b u s i n e ss in L e s o t h o. T he applicant t h en assisted by taking the r e s p o n d e nt a nd h er sister-in-law a r o u nd the dealers in J o h a n n e s b u r g. E v e n t u a l ly the r e s p o n d e nt identified, at the S u p er C ar Sales D e a l e r s, the c o m bi he w a n t ed to p u r c h a s e. He w as required to m a ke a deposit of M 1 0 , 0 00 w h i ch a m o u nt the r e s p o n d e nt did not h a v e. He h ad in his p o s s e s s i on o n ly M 7 , 0 00 w h i ch the S u p er C ar Sales D e a l e rs w e re n ot p r e p a r ed to a c c e pt as d e p o s it f r om h i m. H o w e v e r, b e c a u se s he w as k n o wn to, a nd h ad an a c c o u nt with, t h em the S u p er C ar Sales D e a l e rs w e re p r e p a r ed to a c c e pt the M 7 , 0 00 as deposit f r om the applicant if she herself p u r c h a s ed the c o m b i. T he applicant then a g r e ed to p u r c h a se the c o m bi in h er n a me a nd u n d er h er account. S he u s ed the respondent's M 7 , 0 00 w h i ch the S u p er C ar Sales D e a l e rs w e re quite p r e p a r ed to a c c e pt f r om h er as deposit. T he A p p l i c a nt then signed a credit A g r e e m e nt w i th B a n k f i n, a financial c o m p a n y, for the p u r c h a se of a 16 seater HI - A CE 2.2. s u p er 16 at a total price of M 9 7 , 3 7 4 - 7 2. S he did so on the u n d e r s t a n d i ng that the r e s p o n d e nt w o u l d, in the future, p ay m o n t h ly instalments directly to h er a n d, in turn, s he w o u ld p a ss the m o n ey to the Financial c o m p a ny (Bankfin). As p r o of of h er a v e r m e n ts that s he h ad p u r c h a s ed the c o m bi a nd signed the Credit A g r e e m e nt applicant attached a n n e x u re " J L 1 ", a signed c o py of h er credit a g r e e m e nt w i th the B a n k f in c o m p a n y. In his a n s w e r i ng affidavit, the r e s p o n d e nt averred that in July 1 9 9 6, he a nd the applicant entered into a written a g r e e m e nt w h e r e by he p u r c h a s e d, f r om the latter, the c o m b i, the subject matter of this dispute, at the cost of Ml 5,000. As p r o of thereof the r e s p o n d e nt attached a n n e x u re " M T 1" (the written a g r e e m e n t ). A c c o r d i ng to the respondent, at the t i me they c o n c l u d ed the d e ed of sale ( a n n e x u re " M T I ") the applicant did not inform h im that the c o m bi w as u n d er hire p u r c h a se a g r e e m e nt a nd s he c o u ld not, therefore, p a ss o w n e r s h ip thereof to h i m. On 2 4 th July, 1 9 9 6, he m id the applicant s i g n ed an application for c h a n ge of o w n e r s h ip of the c o m b i. As p r o of thereof the r e s p o n d e nt attached a n n e x u re " M T 2" (the c o m p l e t ed application f o r m ). T he c o m bi w as cleared by the S o u th A f r i c an police a nd the L e s o t ho police p er a n n e x u r es " M T 3" a nd M T 4" d a t ed 15th July, 1 9 96 a nd 3 0 th July, 1 9 9 6, respectively. T he r e s p o n d e nt d e n i e d, therefore, the applicant's a v e r m e nt that s he h ad assisted h im to p u r c h a se the c o m b i, the subject m a t t er of this dispute, as alleged in h er f o u n d i ng affidavit. In her replying affidavit, the applicant d e n i ed that s he h ad sold, p er a n n e x u re " M T 1" w h i ch did not e v en b e ar h er signature, the c o m b i, the subject m a t t er of this dispute, to the respondent. S he did not k n ow the chief w h o se date s t a mp i m p r e s s i on a nd signature a p p e a r ed on a n n e x u re " M T I ". N or did s he affix h er signature on a n n e x u re " M T2 as s u g g e s t ed by the r e s p o n d e n t. H er p u r p o r t ed signature on a n n e x u r es " M T 1" a nd " M T 2" w a s, therefore fraudulent. It is significant to o b s e r ve that a list of signatures a p p e ar on a n n e x u re " M T 1" T he first o ne purports to be the signature of the applicant. L i k e w i se the signature purporting to be that of the applicant, as the p r e v i o us o w n er of the c o m b i, a p p e a rs u n d er " 1 8A a nd B" on the reverse side of a n n e x u re " M T 2 ". O ne d o es n o t, h o w e v e r, require to be an expert in h a n d - w r i t i ng to realise that the p u r p o r t ed signature of the applicant on a n n e x u re " M T 1" is quite different f r om h er p u r p o r t ed signature on the reverse side of a n n e x u re " M T 2 ". I n d e e d, the p u r p o r t ed signature of the applicant on a n n e x u r es " M T 1" a nd " M T 2" is clearly different f r om h er u n d i s p u t ed signature at the b o t t om of a n n e x u re " J L 1 ". It is n ot in dispute that in J u n e, 1 9 96 the applicant b o u g h t, u n d er hire p u r se a g r e e m e n t, the c o m b i, the subject m a t t er of this dispute, f r om B a n k f in c o m p a n y, at the total cost of M 9 7 , 3 7 4 - 7 2. H o w e v e r, a c c o r d i ng to the r e s p o n d e n t, in July, 1 9 9 6, the applicant sold to h i m, p er a n n e x u re " M T 1 ", the s a me c o m bi at the price of Ml 5,000. If it w e re true m at he h ad p u r c h a s ed this c o m bi f r om the applicant at the price of Ml 5 , 0 0 0, the r e s p o n d e nt w o u ld no d o u bt h a ve a n n e x ed an a c k n o w l e d g e m e nt receipt or d o c u m e n t a ry e v i d e n ce of s o me sort as p r o of thereof. He h as not. I am n ot c o n v i n c ed that the r e s p o n d e nt w as testifying to the truth on this point. M o r e o v e r, I find it incredible that in July, 1 9 96 the applicant c o u ld h a ve sold to the r e s p o n d e nt for M 1 5 , 0 0 0, the c o m bi w h i ch s he h ad b o u g ht u n d er hire p u r c h a se a g r e e m e nt in J u n e, 1 9 96 at the price of M 9 7 , 3 7 4 - 72 thus leaving a h u ge b a l a n ce w h i ch s he h ad to p ay to B a n k f in C o m p a ny as the seller. As r e g a r ds the p u r p o r t ed c h a n ge of o w n e r s h i p, it is significant'to n o te that there is no indication that the application for c h a n ge of o w n e r s h ip a n n e x u re " M T 2 ", h as b e en presented to the registering authority, pursuant to the provisions of S. 1 1 ( 2) ( a) of t he R o ad Traffic A ct 1 9 8 1. N or is there a ny indication that the c o m b i, the subject matter of this dispute, h as b e en cleared in a c c o r d a n ce w i th the l aw relating to c u s t o ms in t e r ms of the provisions of S . 1 1 ( 2) (a) ( v) of the R o ad Traffic A c t, supra. In the circumstances, I am inclined to a c c e pt as the truth the applicant's story that s he did n ot affix h er signature on a n n e x u r es " M T 1" a nd M T 2" a nd reject as false the version of the r e s p o n d e nt that s he did. T h at b e i ng s o, it is r e a s o n a b le to infer that the applicant neither sold the c o m b i, n or p a s s ed the o w n e r s h ip t h e r e of to the r e s p o n d e nt as the latter clearly w i s h ed the court to believe. E v en if I w e re w r o ng a nd it is held that the applicant did sell the c o m bi to the r e s p o n d e n t, it is i m p o r t a nt to b e ar in m i nd that the r e s p o n d e nt d o es n ot d i s p u te the applicant's a v e r m e nt that s he b o u g ht the c o m bi by credit a nd it w as u n d er hire- p u r c h a se a g r e e m e nt at the t i me a n n e x u re " M T 1" w as p u r p o r t e d ly c o n c l u d e d. He only c o n t e n d ed h i m s e lf w i th s a y i ng the applicant did not i n f o rm h im that the c o m bi w as u n d er hire p u r c h a se a g r e e m e nt a n d, therefore, not h er property. It is n ot really in dispute that after s he h ad b o u g h t, p er a n n e x u re " J L 1 ", the c o m b i, the subject m a t t er of this dispute, the applicant t o ok delivery thereof. S he then p a s s ed the c o m bi to the r e s p o n d e nt w h o, s he later f o u n d, registered it in his n a me u n d er L e s o t ho registration n u m b e rs A J 4 4 1. A c c o r d i ng to her, applicant h ad not authorised the r e s p o n d e nt to register the c o m bi in his n a m e. N or c o u ld s he do so as the c o m bi w as still u n d er hire p u r c h a se a g r e e m e nt a n d, therefore, not h er property. In the a v e r m e nt of the applicant contrary to the u n d e r s t a n d i ng that he w o u l d, in the future, p ay the m o n t h ly instalments directly to her, the r e s p o n d e nt n e v er p a id a ny s u ch instalments a nd s he herself h ad to p a y, o ut of h er o wn p o c k e t, M 1 , 5 00 as part of the instalment for the m o n th of July 1 9 9 6. S he attached a n n e x u re " J L 2" as p r o of thereof. . W h en the r e s p o n d e nt failed to p ay the first instalment, applicant c a me to h im to inquire a b o ut it. H is reply w as that the c o m bi h ad b r o k en a nd he w o u ld try to p ay after it h ad b e en repaired. A c c o r d i ng to her, applicant a d v i s ed r e s p o n d e nt to take it b a ck to the R e p u b l ic of S o u th A f r i ca for repairs as it w as still u n d er g u a r a n t e e. He refused. After s he h ad m a de part p a y m e nt of the first instalment, applicant w as u n a b le to p ay further m o n t h ly instalments a nd as of S e p t e m b er 1 9 9 6, the a m o u nt p a y a b le in arrears w as M 4 , 4 9 0 - 0 6. As p r o of thereof s he attached a n n e x u re " J L 3 ". T he a g e n ts of the B a n k f in c o m p a ny h ad already b e en to h er h o u se to r e p o s s e ss the c o m bi b ut did n ot find it as it w as in L e s o t h o. Applicant averred m at s he h ad placed, as security for the a m o u nt o w ed to the B a n k f in c o m p a n y, h er financial i n v e s t m e n ts w i th financial institutions totalling a l m o st M 1 0 0 , 0 00 b e i ng p r o c e e ds f r om h er late h u s b a n d 's insurance benefits. T he B a n k f in c o m p a ny h ad no option but to either r e p o s s e ss the c o m bi or p ay itself f r om h er investments. I n d e e d, the B a n k f in c o m p a ny h ad already threatened to call for the security on 3 0 th N o v e m b e r, 1 9 96 if the c o m bi w e re n ot returned or the arrear instalments b r o u g ht up to-date. If that w e re to h a p p e n, applicant s t o od to suffer i m m e n se financial loss w h i ch s he w o u ld not easily r e c o v e r, at a later stage, f r om the r e s p o n d e n t, regard b e i ng h ad to his d e m o n s t r a b le unwillingness to p ay the arrear instalments. T he deterioration of the c o m bi by u se or a b u se w o u ld n ot be r e c o v e r ed even by insurance. It is to be borne in mind that the averment of the applicant that the Bankfin company, as the seller, demands the return or repossession of the combi due to the respondent's refusal/neglect to pay is not really in dispute. N o w, assuming the correctness of my findings that it was bought under a hire purchase agreement and the respondent refuses/neglects to pay in terms of the agreement, it must be accepted that the combi remains the property of Bankfin Company as the seller. That being so, there can be no justification in the respondent's retention of the combi against the demand of the Bankfin company for its return or repossession. In the result, it is obvious that the view that I take is that this application ought to succeed and it is accordingly ordered. The Rule Nisi is confirmed. BK MOLAI JUDGE 6TH February, 1997. For Applicant: Mr. Phoofolo For Respondent: Mr. Matooane.