Supreme Court
Action No. 364 of 1983
6th February, 1984
Moe, J.

Mr. Philip Zuniga for the Plaintiff
Mr. B.Q. Pitts and A. Pitts for the Claimant

Claim for chattel taken by Registrar in execution of a warrant of execution - Claimant establishing ownership of Chattel, but court finding on a balance of probabilities that Claimant impliedly authorised Defendant to pledge chattel as security for a loan - Chattel ordered to be sold.

J U D G M E N T

The Claimant claims a Ford Bronco which was taken in execution by the Registrar under a warrant of execution issued in this Action between the Plaintiff and Defendant. The notice of her claim filed referred to the item claimed as one 1983 Tan Ford Bronco with Engine No. IFMENISF6DLA20203 with Licence plate No. NZR883. In support of her claim, the claimant gave evidence and produced documents in relation to one 1983 Ford Bronco with identification No. IFMENISF6DLA20203.

It was submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff that the evidence given does not support the claim and the claim ought to fail. I am unable to uphold that submission. In these proceedings I am required to determine whether the Claimant had the right to possession of the chattel seized by the Registrar. The affidavit of the Registrar, before me, shows that the chattel seized was one 1983 Ford Bronco, Tan in colour bearing engine No. IFMEU15F6DL20203 and Licence Plate No. NZR883. I hold that I am required to determine whether the Claimant has made out her claim to one 1983 Ford Bronco, Tan in colour with engine No. IFMEU15F6DL20203 and Licence Plate No. NZR883.

The evidence of the Claimant was clear and I accepted that she agreed to purchase the vehicle concerned. She made a deposit of $1,450.00 towards the purchase price on the 11th May, 1983 and agreed to pay the balance over a period of four years by monthly installments of $471.60. I also accepted that she took out insurance in respect of that vehicle. She also presented a registration certificate in her name in respect of the said vehicle. She loaned the said vehicle to one Winston Gillett, the Defendant, to use to come to Belize. She gave him no authority to part with the vehicle, nor to pledge it as security nor to deal with it in any way inconsistent with her ownership of the vehicle.

The Plaintiff's evidence is that the said Winston Gillett on the 13th October, 1983 asked for and obtained a loan from him of $15,000.00. Mr. Gillett, in the presence of one Steve Mahler signed for the loan and handed over to the Plaintiff as security for the loan two documents relating to the vehicle concerned in this matter i.e. (a) Vehicle Identification Card and (b) Vehicle License Application (1983).

The suggestion on behalf of the Plaintiff was that the identification card presented by the Claimant is a forgery. On the other hand the Claimant suggests that Winston Gillett handed to the Plaintiff a forgery. I am unable to determine on the evidence before me whether either of the registration cards is a forgery.

For the purposes of these proceedings the Claimant has satisfied me on the evidence that she is the person who bought the vehicle and that it remained hers. She lent the vehicle to Winston Gillett and gave him no authority or permission to part with the vehicle.

The Claimant herself however, while at one stage stating she gave no one authority or permission to deal with it in any way inconsistent with her ownership of it, at another said she has agreed for one Steve Mahler to put a lien on the Bronco because he owed one Mr. Bridgewater some money and she felt sorry for him. But it was not done. It would be odd that she would feel sorry for Steve Mahler and let him put a lien on the Vehicle and not feel sorry for Winston Gillett with whom according to her own evidence, she has been having a girlfriend/boyfriend relationship and whom she has been helping with money from time to time. I noted that Steve Mahler is the person in whose presence the transaction between the Plaintiff and Mr. Gillett took place. The evidence therefore raised in mind the probability that the manner of the Claimant's dealing with the vehicle allowed for the transaction between the Plaintiff and Defendant. I took this circumstance into account in determining what should be my order.

In the result which I hold that the Claimant has established her claim, I think that taking into account all the circumstances before me that the interests of justice require that the Bronco vehicle be sold by the Registrar, judgment debt and costs satisfied and the balance paid over to the Claimant.

----------OO----------