Sanga v Rimana [1997] SBHC 64; HC-CC 076 of 1995 (27 February 1997)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Civil Case No. 76 of 1995

JONES SANGA & ALAN EFO

-V-

DANIEL RIMANA

High Court of Solomon Islands
(Lungole-Awich, J)

Hearing: 27 February 1997
Judgment: 27 February 1997

A Radclyffe for the Plaintiffs
C Ashley for the Defendant

JUDGMENT

(LUNGOLE-AWICH, J): This is a sale of goods case in which the plaintiffs claim refund of price, $30,000, they say, because the consideration, the goods were not delivered, the defendant had no title to the goods. The plaintiffs, Jones Sanga and Alan Efo, are cousins who carried on the business of road transport in Malaita by the style of Auluta. They used trucks in the business. The defendant, Daniel Rimana, also carried on road transport business in Malaita. The first plaintiff and the defendant are acquaintances, they have been members of the Provincial Assembly.

The result of the case rests on facts. The plaintiffs’ and the defendant’s accounts of transaction between them are completely different. If the court accepts account given by one party, the other’s must be rejected and the case must fail. It is not a question of applying difficult point of law to the facts.

The plaintiffs’ case as stated in Alan Efo’s testimony is that: The defendant approached him and made offer to sell the defendant’s truck registration No. A1979. The second plaintiff was away in Papua New Guinea for 4 years. Efo agreed to buy the truck for the price of $50,000 payable in cash, $20,000 and by Efo’s own vehicle of registration No. A0993 valued at $30,000. He paid the $20,000 and gave vehicle A0993 to the defendant who in turn handed over vehicle A1979. Efo could not keep the vehicle because a finance company, AGC, successfully claimed the vehicle. The vehicle had been bought by loan from AGC, the loan had not been paid in full. Efo demanded his $30,000 back, but in the end settled on taking another, but older vehicle of the defendant, valued at $30,000 and so he had to pay $10,000 cash to add to the $20,000 which otherwise the defendant would have to refund on the failed sale of A1979. The second vehicle was again taken from Efo. So the plaintiffs claim $30,000, being $20,000 to be refunded from the first transaction and $10,000 paid in the second transaction.

The defendant’s account was completely different. He totally denied the two transactions or any at all between the plaintiffs and him. He testified that: There was agreement between Efo and one, Tony Iro, wherein Iro sold vehicle No. A1979 to Efo. He, the defendant, was only a witness; he signed as a witness. He called Iro as witness, DW2, in court.

My assessment of the evidence was that the account given by the defendant was falsehood. The agreement, exhibit DW1 and counter foils of bank receipts acknowledging payments into banks, exhibits DWI, 3 and 4 were forged. The dates on the bank receipts were altered and the alterations are visible by the naked eye. Iro who produced them admitted writing over the original writings. The payments also relate to dates distant from the transactions alleged. The witness Iro even lied about the simple fact that he had sat in court during the testimonies of witnesses called before he was. The testimony of the defendant was also a lie. He first denied ever owning vehicle A0993 which Efo said he gave to the defendant in 1992 in part payment. When faced with official registration record showing him as owner in 1993, he accepted. He also had difficulty in naming those present at the signing of the agreement, exhibit DR1. His witness had the same difficulty. On the other hand the cross examination of Efo did not bring out discrepancies or suspicion, if anything, it led to clarifications.

I accept the account of the transactions as given by Alan Efo and find as fact that the defendant sold vehicle A1979 when he held no title. In sale of goods the seller warrants title to the goods. Solomon Islands adopted that law from the English sale of Goods Act, 1893, which provided that in contract of sale of goods there is implied condition that the seller had the right to sell. Before the Act, the common law had progressed away from liability for deceit to more or less the position stated in the Act. Under the Act there has been an English case in which the facts are the same as in this case. The English case is Rowland -v- Divall [1923] 2 KB 500 also [1923] All E Rep. 270. In that case a car was taken away after the buyer had used it for some time. English court held that the consideration had totally failed and the buyer was entitled to the refund of the full purchase price, account could not be taken of the buyer having used the car for some time because the buyer did not get what he had bargained for. In some legal systems, the buyer warrants the “right to sell and quiet possession.” It is another way of looking at the same thing. The consideration here has failed totally. There has been no delivery of A1979, by the defendant, Daniel Rimana, to Alan Efo since the implied condition in the delivery has been breached by Rimana. The plaintiffs are entitled to refund of the $20,000 paid on the first occasion and $10,000 paid on the second occasion when parties attempted to settle the first refund. In all, the plaintiffs succeed in their claim for $30,000 representing the price of the goods, against the defendant, Daniel Rimana. Costs of the suit are to be paid by Rimana to Alan Efo and Jones Sanga.

Delivered and
Dated this 27th day of February 1997
At the High Court
Honiara

Sam Lungole-Awich
Judge