Chand v Wati [2004] FJHC 507; HBC0173.2002L (17 November 2004)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL ACTION NO. HBC0173 OF 2002L

BETWEEN:

SALESH CHAND
f/n Ram Charitar
Plaintiff

AND:

CHITRA WATI
f/n Ram Pratap
1st Defendant

AND:

SAIRUSI MASI
2nd Defendant

AND:

RAVINDRA NATH DUBE
f/n Kedar Nath
3rd Defendant

AND:

HARI LAL
4th Defendant

Counsel:
Mr. I. Khan for the plaintiff
Mr. R. Gordon for the 1st defendant

Hearing & Judgment: 17 November 2004

EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the court by way of notice of assessment of general damages, interests and costs filed on 14^th August 2002. Judgment previously having been entered in favour of the 1^st defendant on its cross claim.

The proceedings were commenced by the plaintiff filing a writ of summons and statement of claim on the 24^th May 2002. These proceedings were met by a statement of defence and counterclaim filed by the 1^st defendant on the 23^rd July 2002. It is that counterclaim which founds the notice of assessment of general damages, interests and costs.

The plaintiff has previously been represented by Mr. Iqbal Khan. Mr. Khan appears before the court this morning, advises that he holds no further instructions from the plaintiff and he is unable to proceed with the matter or continue to represent the plaintiff. The matter has then proceeded in the absence of the plaintiff or any representation on his behalf.

It appears from the pleadings, the plaintiff was the tenant of the 1^st defendant pursuant to what might be described as a commercial tenancy. The special damages subject of an earlier judgment covered matters such as arrears of rent, unpaid water bills and the like.

The 1^st defendant now seeks general damages for the breach of contract. It is acknowledged on behalf of the 1^st defendant cross claimant, that those damages are not great but an amount of $1,000.00 is sought, essentially for the inconvenience that has resulted from the plaintiff’s breach of the contract.

In the circumstances and in the light of the history of this matter as it appears from the file, the sum of $1,000.00 does not appear unreasonable by way of general damages.

The 1^st defendant also seeks interest on the judgment with respect to the special damages from the date of judgment, that is the 9^th August 2002 until that judgment is satisfied. Interests is sought at the rate of 13.5% and that amount is justified on the basis that it is a commercial transaction and accordingly, a commercial rate of interest is applicable for the unsatisfied judgment debt.

In the circumstances and taking account of the history of this matter, it seems that the rate claimed may well be reasonable and there is nothing before me to suggest otherwise.

The final matter sought by way of the counterclaim is costs. The costs are sought on the counterclaim on a solicitor client basis however it has been submitted to the court costs calculated upon the High Court highest scale of costs. The costs amount to $1,875.00 and the disbursements totaled $258.75 making total costs and disbursements of $2,133.75. Allowing costs calculated on the basis, is certainly less than would otherwise be awarded in accordance with the cost order sought in the counterclaim. However in the light of the earlier orders, it is appropriate the costs be ordered on the High Court scale.

Orders

1. Verdict for the 1^st defendant against the plaintiff by way of general damages in the sum of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00).
   
2. Judgment debt attracts interest at the rate of 13.5% from the date of judgment.
   
3. Plaintiff to pay the 1^st defendant’s costs and disbursements in the sum of Two Thousand, One Hundred Thirty Three Dollars and Seventy-Five Cents.
   

JOHN CONNORS

JUDGE

At Lautoka

17 November 2004