Sucrest Chickens v J&M Distributors t/a Chikumbutso Poutry Farm (Civil Cause 1440 of 1994) [1994] MWHCCiv 33 (19 September 1994)

IN 'l'IIE l!IGII COURT OF M/\L/\W I PRINCIPAL REGISTRY CIVIL CAUSE NO. 1440 OF 1994 SUCREST CHICKENS .... APPELLANT vs J & M DISTRIDUTORS T/A CHIKUMBUTSO POUTRY FARM ...... .... ...... ... rlESPONIJENT Coram E . B . Twea ACTING flEG1STRAR Sindhu for plaintiff Defendant Counsel abscn L ORDER This summons was br'oughl by ttie pl.cti 11l. i f'f' lo cnLc1' judgment on ad mi ss i o n. de f(' ndan t 1 awye rs who cl L cl not appear , how ever' . thus proceeded with the summo n s under Or 2'7 the Supreme Court or 27 r J reads: The summons was du I y scr'vc<J on Ll10 Th e pl a_i n Li ff r" J of Uw Hu Les or " Where admissions of fact or of part of a case are made by a party to a cause or matt e r eit her by thls pleading or otherwise , any other party to the cause or ma tter may apply to the court for suc h judgment or order as upon those admissions . . . . . . . . ... " The pla intiff did n ot file any affidavit evidence but when prosecut in g his aapple he did produce documents for which he relied to prove the admission . feel I would treat it as an irregularity in accordance with Or. 2 r 1 on non - compli ance with rules of procedure . not throw out the summons . I have looked at this and I I wi ll thus The plaintiff produced five invoices totalling to US$23,400 from themself for the defendant company. Further the plaintiff produced the letter by the defe n dant co mpany's managing director in which she ad mit the debt owi n g to the plaintiff but pleaded for ti me and cited foreign exchange remittance procedural difficulties as part of the r easons for 2/ .... 2 - _ time . Further , by her letter, PEX III, the fai l ing to pay director indica·ad t hat th ey had s uf ficient funds and ca pital, to , therefore admits owi pla intiff s · ,, .its letters the defendant company clearly h ~laintiff the su m of US$ 23 , 400 stipulated in _ t Et*and inv oices PEX I a nd PEX II ,ay out th ei r creditors . It is my view : fixed assets , I find that the defendant did not admit the Be this as it m interest cha rge · :· as per their letter PEX III . This letter clearly stip ul a es t hat in t h ei r view, there was n o agreement to pay interest at ' he r ate o f 4 8% on ove rdu e accou n ts . For this reason I fihd t _t the int e rest sum i s not ad mitt ed a t all. I enter juDgment on admis sion for t h e plaintjff in the sum admitted of US$ · , 400 only with costs . Pronounce . n Chambers t hi s 1 9t h day of September , 1994 at Blantyre . t. -i . Twea 'REGISTRAR