IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2001

Action No. 58 of 2000

 

Between	(ATLANTIC BANK LIMITED	PLAINTIFF
	( ( ( And ( (
	(ADELMA BROASTER (NORMAN PETERS	DEFENDANTS

D. Shaw for the Plaintiff
Defendants In Persons

AWICH J:

J U D G M E N T

Atlantic Bank Limited, the plaintiff, had writ of summons issued against Miss Adelma Broaster and Mr. Norman Peters, the defendants, for a claim of $9,098.04 together with interests until payment and costs. The writ of summons was issued under order 74 Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, for summary procedure. The defendant, Broaster, admitted having borrowed the sum of $6,500.00 from the plaintiff's bank. She acknowledged the loan by signing a promissory note, now Exhibit P. E. I -1. The defendant, Peters guaranteed the loan and he admits liability in the event that Broaster does not pay.

The testimony of the only witness for the plaintiff, Mr. Eustace Ireland, did not add much to the averments in the writ of summons. Miss Broaster only questioned the witness as to whether payment was not made on her behalf by a Mr. Cleland, and whether the sum of $803.95 for which she received a credit note, exhibit No. D.A.B. 5, was taken account of when the final debt was drawn up. The witness denied that the bank received payment from Cleland, but could not vouch that the sum of $803.95 was taken account of in favour of Broaster. Mr. Peters did not contend the sum stated as owed. He said that he accepted to act as guarantor because he thought that the loan was a small sum. He further said that when he was informed that Broaster had not paid the loan, he asked her about the non-payment. The answer was that the loan had been paid off.

According to the accounts kept by the plaintiff's bank the last payment was made on the 1.9.1999, and on that date the debit balance was given as $7,507.50. To that sum has been added interests and penalty sums for late payment since that date. The total sum due by the date the writ was issued was $9,098.04. The defendant's main defence was that the loan had been paid off by Mr. Cleland.

Mr. Ireland the witness for the plaintiff, does admit that the credit note produced in Court as exhibit D.A.B. 5, was issued by the plaintiff's bank and showed that the sum of $803.95 was a sum to the credit of Broaster. He does not know whether the sum was actually entered in another account No. 200578052 also bearing No. 503011067, of the defendant Broaster at the plaintiff's bank. Broaster told the court that upon receipt of the credit note she went to the Plaintiff's bank and made inquiry about the credit note, and an official of the plaintiff's bank informed her that the sum had been applied to pay part of the loan. She was agreeable to the sum being used to pay the loan. In court today the plaintiff was unable to show that the sum of $803.95 was actually not taken from the relevant account or alternatively that Broaster would still be allowed to withdraw the sum of $803.95 if she were to ask for it.

It is my decision that Miss Broaster owed the sum of $9,098.04 as at 6.7.2000 to the plaintiff. Her claim that Mr. Cleland paid off the loan has not been proven. She had no acknowledgment receipt or any document to that effect. It is also my decision that against the sum she owes I have to deduct the sum of $803.95. The sum for which the plaintiff gets judgment is therefore $8,294.09. The plaintiff also gets judgment for interests at the rate of 14.5% per annum until payment, together with costs to be taxed if not agreed.

The defendant Mr. Norman Peters is now liable to pay the sum owing, he having guaranteed the loan which Miss Broaster has failed to pay.

Delivered this Tuesday the 22nd day of April, 2001

At the Supreme Court, Belize City, Belize.

Sam Lungole Awich
Judge