Automotive Products Limited v Mia (Civil Cause 579 of 1979) [1987] MWHC 3 (30 October 1987)

Coram : INTHE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI *. {vg “ee ah aD Go * PRINCIPAL REGISTRY 9 aay MPL CIVIL CAUSE NO. 579 OF 1979 de _ AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS. LTD... 2... nities PLAINT LSS versus ISMAIL MIA ABBA MIA ........-00-002- DEFENDANT The Hon. the Chief Justice (Mr. Justice Makuta) Kaliwo of Counsel for the Plaintiff Saidi of Counsel for the Defendant Manda, Court Reporter . fhigary, Court Clerk JUDGEMENT By Writ of Summons dated 24th September, 1979 the plaintiffs claim the sum of K4,450 being the price of a motor vehicle was issu Another Messrs. for him. On 13th registration No, CA 2496 sgld te the defemdant... . This case has taken a long time. When the Summons ed it was left to lie for sometime and it lapsed. Summons was issued on 21st November, 1984 and Savjani & Co. were briefed by the defendant to act The defence was filed on 24th December, 1984. May, 1985 Messrs. Savjani & Co. ceased to act for the defendant. On 24th May, 1985 Messrs. Saidi & Co. were appointed to act for the defendant. Since that appointment the hearing of the case has been adjourned on more than two occasions because of the defendant's absence. When the case resumed that he date he and he, by 20th on 22nd Gctober, 1987 Mr. Saidi informed the Court had been unable to locate the defendant. The last had contact with the defendant was on 15th October the defendant, was warned that if he did not call October, 1987 Mr. Saidi would cease to act. The defendant did not call. Mr. Saidi believes that the defendant is in town and he is deliberately keeping away. In view of this non-cooperation Mr. Saidi applied to cease acting for the defendant. I acceeded to this application. There is no doubt at all that the defendant was aware of the date of hearing. Court th Under Order 35 rule 2 of the Rules of the Supreme e trial proceeded in the absence of the defendant. URT | [ Men coum OF cues f ete Spe Rite ARY i Soe, 2 MRS Brogan oF Mr. Mcpherson Bester Kajawa was the only witness for the plaintiff. He told the Court that he is an Assistant Credit Controller working for the plaintiff and has been in that position for about 10 years. His duties include Credit Controlling and chasing those who do not pay. He was aware of the defendant's account. The defendant bought a Fiat truck in 1977 but was invoiced in 1978. This was because. . the defendant took it on trial basis after paying a deposit. If not satisfied, he was supposed to return it. As it happened, he never returned it. This was an indication that he was satisfied with the performance of the vehicle. It was then decided that the defendant be invoiced. ~~ ‘The value of thé vehicle was K4,500 and the defendant paid K50 on delivery. “A receipt number 30807 was issued on ist April, 1977 leaving a balance of K4,450. The ownership of the vehicle was changed-into Feroz Transport, the name the defendant trades in. It is his business name. The defendant has not made any further payment and this is supported by Ledger Card Exhibit P3. I have examined the circumstances of this case and I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum claimed. I, therefore, enter judgement for the plaintiff. The defendant will pay costs of this action. PRONOUNCED in open Court on 30th day of October, 1987 at Blantyre. Br cbote F. L. Makuta CHIEF JUSTICE