Sayani t/a Sayani Stationery Supplies v Mission for Evangelical Training and Development (Civil Cause 316 of 1993) [1994] MWHCCiv 5 (26 April 1994)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI LILONGWE DISTRICT REGISTRY CIVIL CAUSE NO. 316 OF 1993BETWEENF. F. I. SAYANI t/a SAYANISTATIONERY SUPPLIES ................................... PLAINTIFFAUDMISSION FOR EVANGELICALTRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT ........................... DEFENDANTCORAH;TWEA, SENIOR DEPUTY REGISTRAR Movette (Mrs)t for the Plaintiff Defendant/CounsoI absentRULINGThis is an application for summary judgment against the defendant under or 14 r 1 of R. S. C. In this case the plaintiff by writ brought action against the defendant for payment of goods supplied to the dofendan'. at the defendant’s request. The plaintiff averred that the debt due plus interest was "24,928.25. The defendant denied this in. their defence of 1st November 1993. The mini’.tiff then applied for, and with the consent of the defence, was granted directions for trial. It is only after directions were order that the plaintiff now seeks to enter summary judgment. on grounds that the .defendant has no triable defence and that the defence on record is in fact a sham. I have carefully examined the record. and the rules applic­able. I do not think order 14 r 1 is applicable here. In my view, or 25 on summons for directions gives the court and indeed counsel wide powers to deal with a lot of preliminary issues in order to minimize the cost of litigation. In fact under or 25 r 7, it is the duty of each party to make all interlocutory applic • ations on summons for- direction. This gives the party a lot of powers and in or 25 r 7 (3) it is said:’’Any application subsequent to the directions and before judgment as to any matter capable of being dealt with on an interlocutory application in the action must be mads under the summons by two clear dry's notice to the other party stating the grounds of the application” . This case, in ray view, is on all focuss with the rule. When the plaintiff brought this before court it should have boon obvious to them that the application for directions was made. However, I do not think this court would throw out this summons. In ay view, order 2 r 1 applies here and I will look at this summom as if it were brought under or 25 r 7 (3) of R. S. C. and not or 14 r 1. I have considered the affidavit submitted and the exhibits attached there to. I am afraid, I do not agree with the plaintiff. The documents exhibited only refer to n debt cf £14,048.49 end not £24,228.96 which is claimed and denied. The plaintiff ave . that this sum is made up cf the capital plus interest. By simp!’ arithmetic the interest amount in this case would be ”10,330.7 about 57% of the sum which is in issue as per exhibits. Th defendant denies this and put the plaintiff to service proof thereof. On the facts before me, I would not say this defence is a sb . at all. I find that the exhibits do not contain any admission of debt plus interest of K24,928.96 at all. I thus dismiss t' a summons for summary judgment brought by the plaintiff. I do net find that there were sufficient reasons for bringing this summon by plaintiff, therefore the dismissal is with costs. PRONOUCED in Chambers thia 23th day of April 1994 Lilongwe. TWEASENIOR DEPUTY REGISTRAR