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