Appeal Court nullifies judgement requiring Virani to pay Versi over 170m/-

 
THE Court of Appeal has nullified the judgment and set aside the decree requiring businessman, Mr Murtaza Mohamed Raza Virani to pay his business partner, Mr Mehboob Hassanali Versi over 170m/- as loan facility refund.

Justices Mbarouk Mbarouk, Kipenka Mussa and Ibrahim Juma ruled in favour of Mr Virani after partly allowing his appeal he had lodged to challenge findings of the High Court’s Commercial Division dated September 4, 2003.

The High Court had granted what is described as a judgment on admission in respect of 85,000 US dollars as pleaded by Mr Virani in the written statement of defence following a suit that had been instituted by Mr Versi before the High Court.

In their judgment, however, the justices of the appeals court, however, noted that it was not clear from the records whether Mr Virani, the appellant, was given an opportunity to express whether or not he acceded to the prayer for judgment on admission.

“It was imperative upon the trial court to clearly indicate that the appellant was afforded such opportunity as well as his response to it. Thus, this appeal is partly allowed in that the judgment on admission dated September 4, 2003 is nullified and set aside,” they declared.

The justices, therefore, ordered the records to be remitted back to the High Court to enable it to rehear and determine the prayer for judgment on admission in accordance with the law and the court may wish to hear and determine preliminary objections raised by Mrs Rubab Mohamed Raza Virani on the matter.

Before the High Court, Mr Versi, the plaintiff, is suing Mr and Mrs Virani, who are defendants in the matter, for recovery of a principal sum of 100,000 US dollars plus interest to the tune of 133,843 US dollars.

The principal sum allegedly owes on account of a loan agreement which was executed in favour of the defendants on June 17, 2000.

Following such a dispute, the plaintiff instituted the suit before the court on November 14, 2002. In the written statement of defence, Mr Virani is alleged to have acknowledged receipt of 85,000 US dollars from the plaintiff paid between the ends of June 2000 to mid January 2001 in three instalments contrary to the terms of the loan agreement.

Records show that it was on that basis the plaintiff was convinced to move the court to grant a judgment on admission of such receipt of the money, an account that appears to be of different position and meaning from Mr Virani.