Leyland DAF (MW) Ltd v Lambat (Civil Cause 790 of 1992) [1993] MWHC 15 (13 April 1993)

.... --~ BETWEEN : IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI PR I NCIPAL REGISTRY CIVIL CAUSE NO. 790/92 ~~ LE YLA ND DAF (MW) LTD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PLAINTIF F VERSUS . A. LAMBAT . . . . . . . . ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DEFENDANT CORAM f": D F MWAUNGULU •~. Nampo ta for the Plaintiff ,)}); Ch iz umila for the Defendant ORDER t o to be ,' on I heard argument , judgement will the 4th of March, reserved ruling. Upon read ing the plai nt iff's ap plib~t ion for summary judgement under Order 14 of th e Rules t h e Of 1'he Su pre me Court. I pl eadlng s, th e affid a vit s in support, opposition and re pl y and li steni ng for K4 4,490 . 1 2. The c ase will go to trial for the sum of K4 ,6 04.66 subje16't t his sum be i ng paid into court in the nex t sixty days 1/ \i:1\i ··r1-~l·" r~ The pl an tiff took out this action on the 2 3rd of June, t o the 19 92 t cla im ing K94, 851. 78 for goods and services supplie d are de fendan t. pa rticul ar ise d in the stat e ment of claim issued togeth er with th e wri t . On 8th July 1992 the defendant lodged a no ti ce of On 15th July, 1992 the plainntif f served in tentio n to defend. an amen dm ent c redit no te' '·fo r This reduced the cla im to K5 4, 351. 78 . 'l the st a tement claim to account for a the sum of K4 0 , 5 00. 00. the work i nvoices enter ed goo ds for and The to t he 26th o f Au i:i: u s t, 199 2 the plaintiff t oo k out this On s ummons. In the af f idavit in support of the applicati on it is de poned th at on 19th Mar c h, 199 2 , after a demand letter f or the d efendant sum of K54, 3 51. 7 8 was to Two is sued p os tda ted cheques for th e sum. c heques were dishonoured. the am ended ap plication a llows for to be de fence. the ent ered se t-off . The plaintiff ther e fore, prayed for judgmen t o f KS0,0 9 4.78, after (exhibits JMC 2- 6). The affidavit in support o f se t-off contained the defendant, takin g s ent a way sum the th e t h e th e in in On t h e affidavit i n o pp o s iti o n t h e tr ansacti o n . 22 nd Oc Lo b e t· 1 99 2 th e 'l'hi :=; a ffidavit d efe n da nt i s mo r e se rve d an r eveali n g of In t h e a ffi davi t i s exh i bit e d a n d an pla in t iff for va r io u s wo r k s . l ette r q u o t at io n o f Kll ,7 92 . 7 4 . ex h i b i t FAL invo i ce 1 20 8 6 f o v ar io u s work s d o n e invo ice is for t h e s um o f K4 , 60 4 . 66 ( ex h i bLt FAL). e n c lo s u re . Th e a Th is compr ises 1 et te r and e n c lo s ur e i s a qu o t atio n tw o Ther e i n Zam b i a . f r o m p arts : th e a s h o w a f ur th er Th is i s Th e d e f e n da n t Th e a mende d d e f ence parag rap h it is c o n ce d e d K54,35 J. . 78. 12t h Sep t e mb er 1991 wa s defe ndan t doe s n o t Th e de fe n da nt a l so d isp u te s works do n e wor kmans h ip . b reakdo wn K40 , 63 3.3 7 . see n, in exhibit FAL 2 . f or KJ.1, 79 2 . 74 wa s un il at e r a l t h e cr e dit not e c ont e n ds th a t t h e sec ond r e duc ed th e clai m to t h e q uo tatio n da ted The t h e r e f or e wa nt t o pay th e sum o f K9 , 1 1 3 . 7 5. t h e c l ai m f o r K4,604. 6 6 f o r vari ous r e p eat j o b s for p oor t h e r e wa s a t h e s um of th e se t-off wh ic h, as we h ave Th e d e f endant t h ere for e adm i t s t he p l aint i ff i s n ot c la im i ng s ummary judg e men t It was for t h i s poo r wo rkm a nship t h a t. in Zamb :La b e c a u s e The r e is a i n Zambi a . th e y wer e r ep e a t o f f o r. i n I n t h e af fid avit i n o pp o si t i o n t h e c h eques we re is su e d on th e firm under s tandin g t he d e f e ndan t conten ds t h at h e It i s , t h e s et - o f f . the def e nc es h e h as th e think, t h a t wo uld th e r e fo r e , r ai s e pla intif f h a v ing t a k e n thi s a ction. f o r ego h i s ac ti o n o n , ope n h i m to t o I the facts I · h a v e s ubj e ct ed s e ri ous s c r utiny. that come out fr o m th e In all f a irne ss to b ot h aff idav its to a i s s ue s co ul d easi ly hav e been narrow e d an d r esolv ed par ties . th e Th e on ly if cons id e r able c a r e had be en tak e n on the the sum of K4 , 6 04 . 6 6 o n invo ice matte r number f h 2086 dat ed p l ai n tif fs co n te nt ion is t hat t h e re i s n o triable issu e an d th e d e f e n d ant h as no defe n c e ,·to go to tr ia l t h e ac t ion . January , is fo r f ac ts. 1992. 1 4 t h The t o ' Aga in s t c orre ctly th e d e bt s . t o cov e r t his i s no t Th e main pr etext f or t h e pl a intiff ' s c on te nti o n is th at i ssu ed the in deb te d n e ss i s n ot d i s put e d b e cause th e d e fend a n t f act che que s a n ac tj_o n o n bill of e xh a ng e . Mr Chi z um i la tha t th a t the con ten d ~ , d o es n ot defe nd ant off e r ed prec lude h i m if h e h as a d e fe n ce . The case cit e d for t h is in the Sup rem e Cour t of Appea l d ec i s ion in Mak a niankhond o Bui ldi ng Cont rac tor v ers us Ha r dwa r e Ge n e r a l De a le rs (19 8 2 , Co u r t App eal th e p ract ice Case Numb er 1 2 , unr e p ai d. establi s h ed by i n Ev a ns v er sus Ba r t lam (1 937) A . C 4 7 3 , 4 79 wh ere Atkin L J sa i d : fact in s talm e nt s Th a t d ec ision foll o ws t h e Ho u se Of Lo rds the pl a intiff is th e t h e debt by in my vi e w in 1 93 7 to pay that the 3/ ... .. - J - I I j_n do fo r a nd n ot i t whil e fj_nd n o thing in enjoyment of find my se lf convinc ed by h e st ill is I cannot brin g mys e lf to th i nk t h at a t h es e "My Lord s , judge me nt s. t h e facts a n a l ogous to cases wh ere party ha vj n g obta in e d and e nj o yed ma t erial judgem e nt h as b ee n held precluded from benefit fro m a at tackin g the be nefit . judgement r ecei ves a stay of exec ut jon de btor who asks ap probat e t he jud ge me n t , so as t o p re c lud e him thereafter from seeking t o ~et aside whether by a pp ea l or ot h erwi se. No t h e doctri n e of I do s tmpl e a n s wer to say that to inf er e lection. e lection it mu st be s hown that the person co n cerned h ad f ull knowledge of th e various rig h ts amongst which h e ele cts . The r e is h ere n o e v ide n ce that the def e n dant at th e time he asked for a nd re ce ived tim e h ad a ny knowledge I of his rig h t cannot think that t h ere is a n y pres umpt io n t h at h e kn ew o f this remedy eit h e r s uffici e nt ly for the purpos e of the doctri n e as to e l ect i on or at al l ... " judgement aside . it po ss ibl e to set the to app l y It is a a pp ly find to judge me nt . The on ly catch is t ha t both t h ese cases we re on a n applicati on to set aside a I h ave come across no a uth ority directly on an ap plication und e r Ord e r 14 . On e thing , h owever, i n stan ces : the d efe nd a nt must r aise a triabl e is common to b ot h I find no r easo n wh y wher e issue or a d efence o n the me rit s . there is an application un der Order 14, and th e r e i s a d efence to the action, the d efe ndan t s hould be denied the ri g ht to put forewar d his defe n ce si mply b ecau se mi stake nly h e h ad offe r ed Th e law s h ou ld s how more co nd esce nd ence to pay by instalment. where, th e d ec i sio n wa s mad e wi thout leg a l advice. The fac t that the d efe ndant agreed t o pay by in s talm e nt s d oes not in itself pre vent the d efe nd a nt raising such d efe n ces as h e h as to an application for summary judgement . like h ere , Th~ def endan t the transac tion, t h e quotation, t h e rep ai r s conducted in Zambi a and js not subject of th e application. the set -of f . There are two iss u es whi c h the d efe ndant contends ar e triable a nd sho uld be left for t rial . three aspect s of The set - of f iss u e with takes in Thi s There the lett e r. is n o me rj_ t is th e figur e the argu me nt that t h e quotation s hould stand at Kl l, 792 . 64 . Of course the lett e r me n tions this that is tallied on the qu otation fig ure. s h eets accomp ani n g It is quit e c l ear f r o m the se doc umments th at t h ere wa s a n e rror i n th e extrapolati o n of the Th e cost of eac h , is 1<468. 54 . cost o f When e xtrapo l ati ng for twelv e suc h bea ring s th e price o f one is Th ere is a s h ort f all of put . the to the def e nd a nt i n KS , 153 . 94 . l ette r of 24t h Feb ru ary , 1 992 . Thi s e xpl a nat io n is plai ntiff ' s plausible and accep tabl e . Mr Ch izu mil a s ubmitt e d t h at the fact t h at t he defendant n e v er r ep li e d d oes not mean the explan ation The corr ec t prjce i s K568 2 . 48 . The e rr o r was expla in e d twelve bige n d beari n gs . 4/ . . .. . - -- was be l i ev ed . Th e ma t te r is triabl e and t he pl a inti ff should be cross - exami n ed on Th e r e i n my vi ew , sufficient t h at t h ere was a n e rr or. The pretD_;L:$e on the affidavit s to f i n d defendan t can n ot ben e f i t fro m j_t . He mu s t pay t h e a ctual price for ~ h e goods su p pl i e d . i s , j_ t . r. J'·~\· . ~-•' The n the r e is t h e i nv o i ce f or wo rk do n e and exp l ai n ed in Zamb ia was d u e poor workm a n s hip t h is . defe nd a n t co n te n ds that t h e plai n tiff ' s defe nd ant cannot pay f o r breakd ow n repai r al leg a tio n on whi c h the ·pl antiff (H arriso n defe nd a n ts defe n ce on t h e " S hadow y ", Limit e d 82 4 ); the sum of K4 , 604 . 66 is pai d jn to co u r t Leave is g r a nt ed l) (~n nin g M. R. ( Pe r Lord i s su e - v - to t o a ve hi cle . h is moto r i n Zamb j_ a. The r e p ai rs i n Zamb ia e ma n ate fr om the o n The Th e plai n tiff contends that the tim e of Th is is a so r t of to in terr ogate Th e i s h o we v e r , to b o rr o w a p h rase, :i n Va n Ly n n De vel opm e nts f a ul t p ate nt at t h e to d e f e nd th e act i o n o n condi. ti o n i n t h at t h e n ext sixty days. t he d efe nd a nt s . t h e de f e nd a nt is e n tit l e d Pel i. as Co n :3Lr· u c LL o n Co mpa ny . ( 1. 96B) J /\ .1 1 E. H - v - Botte nh ei m ( 1 878) 26 WR , CA) . . be to w L I L /\ s Lo s urnrn c1 ry L1 1c n :s i du e , s i tti n g wit h o ut a f i x e d b y jud ge me n t of Th e r e t h e case w i ll b e Lr· i e d, ur1l e ss K44 , 49 0 . 1 ? . t rie d b y t h e Reg i st r ar , by a t he parti es couse n t th e prin cipa l Registry on a Judge date t o b e t h e n e x t four tee n days there wil l b e di s co v ery by excha n ge of li sts of doc um ets ve r ifi ed by Th is wi . . L J. b e fo l l o we d by in s p ect i o n fo u rt ee n days affi d avit . J u n e 1993. the r l,:! a fter . The •'• tr ial wi l l for the amo unt obtai n ed u nd e r su mm a ry judge me nt. s et d o wn b y 30t h Costs to th e pl ai n ti f f i L b e :in g j ur y a t Th e case s h o uld b e take a day . t h e co urt . s um t h e Co r I n Th e part i es can appea l t o a Jud ge i n Ch a mb e r s Dated t h i s 1 3L h d;,y o f April , 199/ . ~ i'AJv-'t~ I J/l D F Mwauip g ulu REGI STRA , · oF HIGH COURT