Kachingwe v NBS Bank Limited and Trust Auctioneers and Estate Agents ( 1980) Limited (Civil Cause 199 of 2011) [2011] MWHC 99 (17 June 2011)

I N THE H IGH COUF:T OF M ,(I. LA WI PRINC I PAL REG ISTR Y Civ il Caus,~ f\l o . 199 o f 2011 ~~ t , , , c :4~~M l t . l l \W l l" -" . . : a -~ , . . . I HIGH cou:·-tT L,tBHABY } .:alhlll-~.!i~~,4;: \ Between : Ni ck Kachingwe ...... .. .... .... .. .. ........ ..... .. ... ... ......... ... ... .. ....... ...... ............ .. ..... .... .. ..... .. ...... ......... ... . Pl aintiff And N BS B a nk Limit e d ... . .. ...... .. .. ......... .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... .. .. .... .. .. .. ............ ...... ... ... .. . .. .. .. ... .... .. .......... 1 " De fendant And Trust Auctionee r s & Es t ate Age n t s ( 1980) Lim it ed ... .. ... ..... ...... ...... ... .. .. .... .. ....... .. .. 2 nd Defendant Coram: Honoura bl e Justic e A. C. Ch i peta Nyimba, of Counse l fo r the Plaint iff Mbeta, of Counsel for rhe Defenclant Mwanyongo, Offic ial i11t e1·preter fWU N Ci - - - - Th e applicat io n before m,• ,,. ,rn ,n ter porres S,J mmon s from the Plaintiff, Nick Kachingwe t/a J & K t 1s aimed at 11,-~ Restaurant ·.<,,,<:' of a 1 Interlocu tory 01der o1 lnJun ction against the Defenda nts, NBS Bank L1m1tec1 and Tru st Au , 11t, i: 1.ce1s & btate Agent'.; (lCJ SO ) Limited. I heard the appl ication on 10 11 1 June , 2011 during the week I wa, 11 '=" In terim /1pp l1 cat on s JLdg e Thi'.; is because by t h e time it was being set down for hearing all ot her Jullg es had the ir busin e ss f,Jr the w,:ek pre -set, and so they could not have been available t o tak e t>1, Ha v ing r ead t he Application, its supporting Affidav it, its Skeleton Arguments , the Defendant':· A ffid avit 111 Oppoc ition, and the Defendants ' Ske le ton Arguments, and ha vin g heard th e parties' rE", 1J et:t1ve Counse l presen t th ," app lic ation orally, I am satis fi ed that the matt e r in con tes t, whic h is the foe . I', "r r11,s c1pp li cat1on. li es wi1 hin a v ery narrow campus. It is not my intention , therefore, to grace it with "' lu,1~ a nd lc1bored rL1ling confine myself to the heart CJf rl)e matte, a ·1el quilkly com e to a decisi on thereon . In as far .,s it might be poss ible, therefo re, I will It is common g ro und on r' o· '« 1o c1vc11l,1b le that berw ,,e n the Plain tiff, a s Nick Kac hin gwe, and the 111 tl1er,? has fo1 a n u-nber o f ye a r s now existed a "De bto r/Cred itor" Defendant , the NBS Ban k ' ,, ,,1°rl ., . ", , esrwc t of a r umber of O verdr aft Facilities. In t h ese relationsh ip s, relationsh ip This has be.., ,, howe ver, some t imes th e e1 ,,1: i1tl has trdnsacted wi th the first Defendant under t he Tr ade Na m e J & K Restaurant, the capacity 111 v:i11ch he ha:; sued the Def1,ndants in th is case, w hi le in o ther instances he has transa ct ed under t he - , ;:1L1e Nanie I\Jick Mo t el . It is also cl,?ar from these same facts , that not al l repayments have progresse c! well 1n all these accc,unts, as there 3re·st ill sizeable outstanding balance s in all , if not most, of them i\:)1J.<1.r:'11tly, there are in place arrangement s regardi ng how the Pla intiff is expected t o se rvice or i', se , v ,c,ng th e se loan s/ deb ts Specifica lly, in relation to O ve rd raft Accou n t No. 0080486 166014 , which ;;,ppc',11 s to h ave t ri gge r e d th e need fo r the present applicat ion , the Defenda nt ' s exhibit " MM 4 " mak e s it , 1,·<1 r t h at the Pia n t i ff has previ ,Jus ly had problems o f defaultin g in h is is a De m a n d Not icE' dated 25 'h Jan uary, 2010, clea rl y spells ou t how repayme nts . Th at exhib it , vv l11 Ll1 unsatisfact o r ily the Plai ntr ft ' ,.,CJ b ee 11 se rvic ing hat f,icility up t o that date. Thro ug h t h at letter th e fi r st Defendant de m anded fr om ti 1t:' Pla in t iff f ull r e p aym ent of the then outstanding ba lance and intere st , as well as t h r e ate n ed either legci l c1ctr o n o r rea l1 za 1 ion o f secur ity ,n e v ent of his failure t o r epa y . tl, rc, t h e ,·el at io n sh ip o f t he parties o n t he a bo ve-ment ion c:I It is fur ther clea r t ha t cles : >I t accoun t surv ived b e yond r11,- 1.1 J ci v s t ,lrr matu m t h at w as g iv e rr in exhibit "MM 4 " As can be seen , som e f ive or so month s be y o n,.r rl,c1i :lrr t"clt . per th e Defen d ants' exh ibit " MM 1, " wh ich i s a lette r dated s·'' Ju ne, 20 10, th e Plaint if f N i: i t' 1c1 thf f rrst Ce f e ndilnt to p lead to service this account w it h lowe r in ,tallment s th an cou ld : _., ,s ,- 1, av e exµeue d. The first Defe n dant proved understandi ng. In t h e threat )th - r esu lt t h e two o f them e r;Lk ·.1 ,r:J "~ ' e e 1,1g t o r e ,t ru ctue the O·Jerdraft in question into a loan repa ya b le between Ju ly , 20 10 an d 2'J 1lr' '-1:' 11 1be r 2011. To day, 35 I dete r m ine t his application, it is o nl y 17 1 2011 Th e r e is, t h ere fore . st,!1 ., be11c1,1 cE· of srx mJn t h s ro go b efore t h is agreement ex pires. n June, It is wort h no t ing tha t t h r' r ic ·,-_, n!:', r e emen t of t l1= p art i es was rE·duced into writing by th e f irst Defenda nt itse lf, an d tha t it was d ulv , ,i , - :ilt' ,:i i)y s1 g na t urE of the Plaint iff at its bottom on 2 11 th e re q ue st of t he first : i, ·i ,- ,,,: , , t Th,? Ag r ee 11e n t ·n quest i J n is exhibit "NK 1" on the pa r t o f t he , ' I r ," pa rt o f the [) e fe nd ants . In my under s ta n ding, wh e n the PI a in t iff a n d PI a in t iff an d exhibit "M IVI . d A ug ust, 2010, as per t h e 1" defe n dant were 'A , ,, ,. '! ru tlw, 11ew c1 rr ang1'm e n t in th e m iddle of the yea r 2010 , t hey wer e e rasi ng and / or r ep lacing ti ,,, ,,. rc1r1;,; t'r11e•1t t h at r, ad ex i ste d b et w een them at the be gi n n ing o f t h a t y e a r. a s amp ly d epic t ed by t hE:' L<:' i'.<:'.' ,f De1n a 11 cl d,,ted 2 ':i"' Ja nu ary, 201 0 If, therefo re , defaults were t o o ccur su bs equen t t o t he,: 1~' / enforcem ent wo uld ha v, .. 1, u lt im atums. I i r • ., I I ' D th rs new a rrangement, then on e would expect th at fresh w ays o f :,,· · ·sn rtPd to , r. Jt h e r t han r e v 2rt in g to the pre -ag r e em ent threats o r Now, w ha t i s su rpr ising re, ' ' '"' ,-, ~>r• cl less of t h e m an ner in w h ich th is new arrangeme nt has so far fare d , there is no sign t h at the 1 u ,, 1e• ricl an t h as in any w ay been pr o -,ict iv e in supervis ing com pliance with t he terms o f th e new ag r ee 111 E· rr t •J\'1ur . however, has aw;ikened an arra ngement that had other wi se go n e fo , mc,re fa ,•o u rs f rom t he first Defen da n t . Findin g h im se lf t o sleep, is the Pla intitr ·, :•: 1u,1 ,o· asi< ,, 'r·1 cu r r e n t a rran ge m ,?n t s, he on 24' 11 Ma y, 2011 , by h is lette r exhib ite d stru ggling w rth t h e d e bt t- . , · a s " N I< 2,"decided t o tr ,.: terms of r e p ayme nt Ht li ,,. " . , r11 the 1 de fe n d a n t once mo re by askin g fo r a f u rth er eas ing o f hi s · - ,1 S b', t l1e ag r :> e1"1 e 11t co ntaici ed in the letter o f 27 h Jul y, 2010 the Pla in t iff w a s meant to ,,,. clebt here in by Chr istma s )a y th is year, his re que st t o th e f irs t Defendant t h is t im e rou 11 1 ·11,1· ,, 'J e all o\/\ecJ to c arry en the r e p aym ents w ith ev e n sm a ll er inst al lm e n t s tha n had been agree d On e wo u ld tend t o t h11 1I· t l ,,,, , .u lJer ,1ssessment of he Plain t iff's new request w o u ld be seen as an attempt by him to pu sh li r· I,, ,, 1 o perat io nal unt il th e e,, : , .· appeared t o hav e so far ,,.,,. , , ! . c, ·)' c ·, se d rt s mi sgiving: abou t the w ay the new arra n ge m ent was go ing, rh e en r em e. 1=onsi d er ing t h;:rt the n ew ag r eement w as still a li ve and yt::' M and f w t h er consider ng that the first De f endant does not o ne wou ld have e x pec tecl 1' "·' ! »,, . l ' De fen d a,1 t wa, not go ing to b e emotional an d / or errat ic in t h e face of its r eceip t o f t his ,,, 1 1" ,"·' 1,, ,,r rt could ha,e t akE·n one o f t wo courses of act ion o n it It w a s open t o t he first De fendant r,. · ... tf:t-· ,c. ,,p at hize w 1tr th e Pla int iff, cS it h ad don e in July/Au gust, 20 10 , and accord ingly gr ve a sym1u 1 l r, , . ·,,. i•, Im woes It was, 1owever. a lso qu it e ope n to t he sa id Defenda n t to Ju st put it s foot dow " ,., ,., · it wrll riot .i llow '. he Plain tiff any more indu lgencies, wh ile at the same tirne insisting tha t 1,,. , , ... , ,,IJ1cl·,' bv r.1·,cJ r,ot rlE'part frorn , the agreement that st il l had ha lf a year to go the first De:en,:iant did not take the Plaintiff's request in good spi rit . Contrary to expectat1011 1 i..,,,,-,, . It got so annoyed with tt1 ,\ :,- !'·''" >: tl1 at in stead of jU St rejecting it with a big "NO," it through exh ibit "NK 11 rv1..,, _. : , uJ111pl ete ly vven t 011 erboard in-reacting to the sa me . Thus, instead of 3, " a lette r dated 31 Just confin ing its elf to re, rJ ... , 1"1'i 1 u tl1e Plain t iff on his request regarding the J & K Restaurant Accou nt 008046166014 in the ligl,r ,,, :: - : ~r 1 11c tur111 g I ha t w ,1s done en its overdraft on 27 'h July, 2010, the fi rst Defendant opted to gu u ,:11 , ,, , 1 lie Plai11t ff 111 t,crms of all his other indebted nesses, even those under the Nick Motel ac _,,1:111,; ,ven t so far as to dig up the dead and buried Letter of Demand of :1 January, 2010, which l1.1cl 1. ·,. , ,;i1i,t:>11sus bern re placed with the "July, 2010 to December, 2011 11 1IJti't211 t ai-,d d i·;p lacecl threat, it accused the Plaintiff of neither havi ng agreement " Referring tu 111,· ,,-1,·E "'it.nor paid off the overdraft. It then stated that in the light ·,-,-,,, heeded the derniJnd thc1 1 ,,, .. ' , ,, • 1 111ce 111 11, s crEd it facilities ( not just the fac ili ty the request had ,_~I 1t rnulcl ne t accept any fur ther proposals from him It th e11 of the Plai ntiff's unsat1s t. been made on ), basecJ , . : , . , ,··. , •· , , , ,: ,11rl1 tl1e coil ateral realization to protect its interests. added that 1t wo ul d thert· ·· It 1s undoubted ly clear re, ,1,•· ·1 r 11 , ·:.ct-"1 1,11 10 t he evidence presents that in th is instance the NBS Ba nk Limited ove rre ac ted to r11~ ,, ,,111,r 1 ·, 1t::-1 111es 1 A; I il av,:, already indicat ed, it could eas ily and adeq uate ly ·:· J f· et 111 §' it A·, the PI a in tiff was Just asking for a favour, the Ba nk have answ ered the re q 1, c: ·., 1 need not have felt as if 11,· , 1,:' 1 tn J,1v e h1r-- a positive 1ep ly. In getting in to ta nt r ums, the refore. .1:w · Owr clraft Accounts he had with the Bank, instead of on ly by extendi ng is react,c, , , ·. I .,, concentrati ng on the 011t ·, •.1,wst , •lc1t ec! to a1,d i·1 crying foul about the Plaintiff's failure to attend to a Letter o f Dem and , v .. !'i1: 1· ,, l1.:1cl w,:1 ,vecl ,, ln·ost ore year b2fore, the first Defendant ' s reaction was no different from that one w, , 1 ,ILI ':"X J) PCt fi· o111 a ',nubb ed child holdi ng an old and expi r ed grudge. I woulcl equa l1. NBS Bank Li mi t ed is a Jur,· r, would primn focie expe .. ·. servondo recalling sec rrr ' ·: in eve 11' that it was a ,,,,·,,; to thP. , ·.,·I,, 20 10/2011 repaym ent orc!L" from it th an it c!is,:ilayecl vvl :,•: the most exti'eme it coulc1 for granted v.•rn1lcl, I belir•v,- Security if i 1- ' · 0 rl there I 1, force. This, i' ,.-. ,,- ·11·5 to rr r re s u It of t h 1· r ":West, p u I 1 Strikes 111 (? <'r · ."'. f)E'Pll , ,, ,:1 ,. s11cl ,. more thrn a flesl1 and blood human be ing on the street, t 11 ,, ,, , ·,1H: 11J rl1e ag1 eern e its it enters into, as per the m axim pocto sunc to p,1y attention to the requirements of the Law o n :.,1111', ,1 1 · epavmerH',, as captured in the Registered Land Act. Cons id er ing ,ner: 1 ,:, t its Jan ,arv, ;010 ultimatum, and to the introd uction of a ne w , ._.,:le! 11' t hl:' circ.1rY1st a 1ces hav,:> expected a much mo re sober reac t ion ', ,_,, 1 l11s llPW request from th e Plaintiff. If anything, it would appear that , •:.,1-. , .. iv" gc1 11e 1f it felt th.3t the Plc,intiff was, through this request, tak ing it ,., ... - l1t't'1 , to l'Cspcnd by giving h m Statutory Notice of the realization o f !;e,- ,, 1111t l11:'r defa ul ts in paymer,ts since the new agree ment came into !11,0 011ly ie git irna e w ay it could have g iven the Plaint iff that it was, as a ci i !lit- 'July, .!010 to December, 2011 agreement. " The shortcut it .. • It sho ulcl IJe of the m;iin ,, Order o: reac t ,on l were th ( ·· that they 111 - the fir<,'. ~.,' \J'<;-t1 . ,,, :, .. 1':,: have 1., /', immecli,1'' r 'l of 11 r-· •1,,0 1 tr io Pla1nt1lf h;:1 s ;imply sh,)wn me that pending the determination 1 , ·11•,•>"t ,; w ith rlw req uirements for him to be aided by an Interlocutory · •11i-:.e ,1L1e11ce , of th e fir'st Cefendant's unexpect ed and emot iona l ;1 1c1· · rop11 1c I the [1efendants were not to be restra in ed, and if the y , ,1 .,. w 11e 11 1 tl1e [ 1efendant had not made this reque st chances are 1 11, ,, u,1t1I 2s'' IJecem ber, 20 11, as per the agreeme nt he still has with It wou ld equally be amiss, in m y view, if t he , , ,: , 11e1e1n wi:I h ave trie effect of depriving the Pla intiff of the benefit 0080Ll616b0 :.il of an ai:;r c end of t l1, agree n1c11 · fou ncJ to actio n, t : on the cc obta inc·' I o rd c-: Mad e ir· IC !lt ·i I · :Jeld .. · \'eel ,1 ,, . , , ii,. 'rrst Defe11da11t fr· eel y agreed to, and sanctio ned t o run up to t he , , 1 ,y, st . vv h I c h 11 as come some six months before the end of the sa id ,i·.,) Jl l'·t IJeca ,.rse the first DefE'rdant believes that even if might la ter be rt w 111 :1, 1c111 t 1,,1 ·:,- 1 t he · ,... .,, ,, posr t ro 11 to p,1y dc1 mages. Pending the outcome o f the commenc ed ,': ,,r r1l tf tlie l1 11 erlocuto ry Ord ,~r of Inj unction he has applied for. This is ,11,l v1t.-1ke to pay ciarn ages in case it shoul d later be held that he ha s , 1." ,, ,,I Orde r sho ulo be drawn and served. \ ·, , · . . ,r llr, , . 2011 ,,t \'._an.tyre , r \ . ·~\, ,~\ 4~ \A .~.' \(' ,1 p ta / ~- J-UQf __... .... / / .·v \ ... \..,~/ '/