ANTHONY HENRY v PETERSON JOSEPH

" .,. SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE -.... (CIVIL) A.D. 1996 Suit No. 845 of 1994 BetweeI'· ANTHONY HENRY Plaintiff vs "' PETERSON JOSEFrl Defendant Mr . M. Foster for Plaintiff Mr, M, Wilson for Defendant \ 1996: February 21 March J U D G MEN T d 'Auvergne J. By a writ o f Summons indorsed with a Statement of Claim the Plaintiff pleaded t hat during t he month of Augus t 19 93 he entered i nto an oral contract with the defendant fo r the Sale of a Ma zda p ick - up Ref. No . T.A . 9925 at the price of $9 , 000 . 00 payable in monthly installments o f $949 , 00 at the Bank of Nova Scotia until the loan was cleared. Further terms of this oral agreement were a s follows : That the Plaintiff pay the monthly house rent o f the Defendant at $200 ,00 per month until payment s on the van were completed , That the Plaintiff make the annua l insurance payment s on the said vehicle. That the Plaintif f woul d have complete custody and cont rol ove r the s aid vehi cle once the above terms a re fulfil l ed by h imself. when the said payments as ment were completed, the Defendant would s over he said vehicle to the Pl iff. eadings further stated that on t 25th October, 1994 days after the Pla iff had the 13th mont to bank the defendant seized the ve~~cle from t iff's to t t f sted an t 6,000.00 on the $9,0 0.00 the van. Plaintiff stated that cons upon the above fendant t breached t contract the caus loss iff and cla t Return of the sa vehicle to pla iff breach f contract s Interest Cost 9th November, 1994 the Pla iff icant an unct request that the Re If his servants or s be ordered to the said Pick-up van T.A. 925 as Statement of Claim and ed s affidavit. matter was heard on the th of r, 1 94 and t 14th December, 1994. Matthew J gave the

1.Subject to 2 of t s order t Defendant Peter Joseph is ordered t del r to the a iff Maz Pi up van strat No. T. A. 9925 orthwl h.

2.The Pl iff must file a Court stamped with a r undertaking as to aamaqes thin 5 days failing which the inlunction shall cease to t effect. es of Court

3.The Plaintiff must also comply he writ and make the e Summons within 14 and f t t t Summons shall be struck off.

4.Costs this matter to be reservea. was entered on t 22nd day , 1994. the lOth 1995 an appearance an affidavit was entered by _ defendant. the 18th of 1995 the def filed a Summons supported affidavit request an order for the dis the unct order in the cause dated th and 1 r, and so Costs of the application. The matter was set hearing on the 8th day of 1995 and was f imes, then on the 30th of r, 1995 an ication W2S fi place Inat~2r on Hear list. s was matter was eventually heard on the 7th , 199 . Counsel for the applicant fendant that to the fi the injunctive order by Plaintiff, the Defendant d vehicle to a third party a bona fide ser He contended that an unction can against a rson, not against the t and when the unctlon was executed the applicant de was no longer owner cleo He further stated that the vehicle was now ice cust that it was substantial damaged. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Pla iff t Court t the Affidavit of Service on file showed t the icant was served on the 3rd December, 1994 for his attendance in Court on t of December, 1994 but he did not appear and therefore t judge no alternative but to use the support aff t t t icant now Respondent in order to arrive at a decis He argued that the issues that were presently rai were premature and were issues to rai at t t substantive case, Bona fide purchaser without notice and moreover hat the vehicle was at the applicant, Peterson's home and was pTPsent ice Cust and t icant could not said to be rgo any He argued strenuously and persuas that the unct the 14th day of De r, 1994 d rna a CONCLUSION my judgment having cons all t aff t evi arguments by both Counsel I have conc that t s is a matter to be tried for there are many questions of aw to Moreover I find abso ely no reason to erfere t unction granted to the then icallt, Re on of December, 1994. Learned Counsel for the icant neither gave any reason nor the Affidavit Reply state the reason for the absence of respondent, present applicant at the ing t f December, 1994. I must be remembered that an unct is an table relief and t fore "he who comes to ty must come th clean " s application is there dismissed. Costs this matter to reserved.

Suit No. 845 of 1994 D’Auvergne, J Delivered: 20/03/96