CIV/T/236/85

IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO

In the matter of

BARCLAYS BANK PLC

V

JOHNSON THABO MOEKETSI

JUDGMENT

Delivered by the Hon Mr Justice J.L Kheola on the 22nd day of July 1985

This is an application for summary judgment in terms of Rule 28 of the High Court Rules 1980 In its declaration the plaintiff states that the defendant entered into a verbal agreement with the plaintiff in terms of which the plaintiff in terms of which the plaintiff extended to the defendant certain overdraft facilities. During or about the period 1984/85 the plaintiff loaned, advanced and disbursed on behalf of defendant, funds in the amount of R17.312.95

The plaintiff further states that it was an implied term of the agreement that the defendant would pay interest on the said overdraft at the prevailing rate of interest from time to time and that at all material times the rate was 22%, that the overdraft, together with interest thereon, would be repaid to the plaintiff on demand. Such demand was made on the 23rd February, 1985 but the defendant refuses or neglects to pay

On the 10th March, 1985 the defendant filed a notice of appearance to defend This led to the application for summary judgment. In his affidavit John Smith who is the Lesotho Manager of the plaintiff deposes that defendant is indebted to the plaitiff in the amount of R17.312.95 respect of monies lent and advanced to him. That he verily at the defendent has entered Appearance to Defend simply for the purpose of delay and has no bone fide defence.

2

In his opposing affidavit the defendant admits that he is indebted to the plaintiff in the amount of Rl5.000 being R10.000 loan and R5.000 overdraft. It was originally agreed that the defendant pay the loan and overdraft out of a pension fund from the UN/DTCD which was due to him. Unfortunately the negotiations for the payment of pension fell through He further alleges that because he was unemployed another verbal agreement was entered into whereby the defendant was to pay at least R200 per month to repay the loan. I am of the opinion that the defendant has now breached the terms of the original agreement because no funds are forthcoming from his pension fund He has also breached the second agreement because he is not paying any monies into his current account to enable the plaintiff to transfer R200 into the loan account every month. On the 3rd December, 1984 and on the 2nd January, 1985 the plaintiff did make a transfer of R200 on each occasion. But this arrangement could not go on without funds being paid into the current account. From the 10th October, 1984 to the 9th January, 1985 the defendant never paid any money into the current account Surely, the defendant cannot expect the plaintiff to repay the loan with its own money when the current account itself was already heavily overdrawn.

For the reasons given above summary judgment is granted as prayed in terms of prayer (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the plaintiff's Declaration.

J.L. KHEOLA

Judge

29th July, 1985