MC Company v Director of Anti Corruption Bureau (Civil Cause 214 of 2014) [2014] MWHC 515 (12 August 2014)

IN THE HIGH PRINCIPAL REGISTRY CIVIL CAUSE NO 214 OF 2014 BETWEEN: MC AND COMPANY (FIRM) wcccsssccseaeiecesenremmumewumuss ¢ussosseanmaneeuenes ss 4a seas PLAINTIFF -AND- THE DIRECTOR OF THE ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU.............0ec0eeee DEFENDANT CORAM: MASOAMPHAMEBE, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Chayekha and Mwala, counsel for the plaintiff Dr. Bandawe & Khunga, counsel for the defendant RULING This is an application for summary judgment. There is an affidavit and skeleton arguments filed in support of the application. By specially endorsed Writ of summons the plaintiff commenced the present action against the defendant. The plaintiff claims the sum of K4,356,00.00 being unsettled bill that the defendant owes the plaintiff as of 10" June 2014. Further he claims compound interest on the said sum at the rate of 3% above bank lending rate from the date when the charges were due to the date of payment. The plaintiff also claims the cost of action. The application is brought under Order 14 of the Rules of Supreme Court. The purpose of the order is to unable the plaintiff obtain a quick judgment where there is plainly no defence to the claim. If the defendants only suggested defence is a point of law and the court can see at once that the point is misconceived or if arguable, can be shown shortly HIGH couRT WIBRARY that it is unsustainable, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment. If an arguable question of law or construction is short and depends upon the documents, then Order 14 is apposite. See Home and Oversees Insurance Company Limited vs Mentor Insurance Company UK Ltd (In Liquidation [1990] 1WLR 153 at 158. Order 14 r 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court provides that where, in an action to which the rule applies, a Statement of Claim has been served on the defendant and that the defendant has given notice of intention to defend the action, the plaintiff may, on the ground that the defendant has no defence to a claim included in a Writ, or to a particular part of such a claim, or has no defence to such a claim or part of it, apply to court for judgment against the defendant. See Sambani_and another —vs- Kamwana and another [1995] 1 MLR 247. While counsel for the plaintiff believes this is a proper case for the court to enter summary judgment, counsel for the defendant is of a different view. He argues that the matter should have gone for taxation or for full trial as per Order 62 of the Rules of Supreme Court. However he admits that the work was done but the bills ought to have been scrutinized. Be as it may, we are of the view that there are gaps in the matter at hand and those gaps can only be filled during trial. The court is not aware of the terms of contract between the defendant and the plaintiffs. Further, was it part of the deal for the defendant to honour every bill presented to him without scrutinizing it? As we have stated earlier on, Order 14 affords the plaintiff to obtain a quick judgment where there is plainly no defence to the claim or part thereof. In our view there are certain grey areas that need to be cleared during full trial. And our opinion is that this is not a proper matter to be disposed of precipitously under Order 14. We therefore dismiss the application with costs. Pronounced in Chambers this 12" day of August, 2014 at Blantyre. IL. uals od Masoa Yarns ASSISTANT REGISTRAR