Supreme Court
Action No. 374 of 1999
21st January, 2000
Shanks, J.

Mr. Lionel Welch for the Plaintiff
Ms. M. Moody, holding brief for Mr. E. Arnold for the Defendant

Application for an injunction for the return of a motor vehicle from the Defendant to the Plaintiff allegedly held by Defendant as agent of Plaintiff - Evidence indicating there was a contract of sale - Need to establish an arguable case to succeed on an application for an injunction - Plaintiff failing to establish an arguable case - Application dismissed with costs.

J U D G M E N T

This is an application for injunction by Robert Aldana who is represented by Mr. Lionel Welch against Alvaro Zetina who is represented by Ms. Moody. The injunction related to a vehicle, a 1996 Toyota Truck, Registration Plate O.W. C-5978. This vehicle is in the possession of the Defendant and has been since December, 1998 the latest and he is making use of it.

The Plaintiff claims to be the owner of the vehicle and seeks an injunction to prevent him from driving, using or controlling it but doesn't go far as seeking an injunction for its return.

The Plaintiff puts in an affidavit in support of his Application which describes how he gave up possession of the vehicle in 1996 and how it was seized by the police because drugs had been found on it and how the defendant had come into possession of the vehicle so as to get a buyer for the Plaintiff and he was therefore only holding the vehicle as an agent.

Two days ago the Defendant put in an affidavit saying that he purchased the vehicle from the Plaintiff and that he had paid the total sum of $15,000.00 for it; that it had indeed been seized by the Police but that he the Defendant had obtained it back from the police by giving a bond of $10,000.00 to the police for the return of the vehicle. That is the state of the evidence. It seems to me that that was the state of the evidence but this morning I have been told by Mr. Lionel Welch that his client informed him on telephone yesterday that he did indeed receive not $15,000.00 but $5,000.00 as he says from the Defendant in respect of the vehicle. This as Mr. Lionel Welch recognizes puts a different complexion on the case and really serves to heavily demine the evidence that Mr. Aldana put in, in support of his application for an injunction. Given that about turn, I would have been most unlikely to grant an injunction in any event, both because the evidence is misleading and because I doubt an arguable case has been established because it looks as if there must have been a purchase arrangement if money changed hands. Furthermore, it seems to me Mr. Aldana have a perfectly good claim for damages. If he establishes the other relevant facts of his case damages will be an adequate remedy. Indeed he exhibits a letter from the Attorney General's Ministry to him, which indicates that he had himself stated to the authorities that he did not want the vehicle back in April, 1999 because it was no longer new and that he was negotiating for a cash payment of $25,000.00 from the Ministry. Thus, if he has a case against Mr. Zetina he will be adequately compensated by the payment of damages. I therefore dismiss this summons and the Plaintiff will pay the Defendant's cost of today of $700.00.