Mohamed Hamisi v. Car and General (T) Ltd. Civ. App. 11-D-70; 10/7/70; Biron.

Mohamed Hamisi v. Car and General (T) Ltd. Civ. App. 11-D-70; 10/7/70; Biron.

The appellant filed a suit for the recovery of a Motor Scooter the subject of a hire-purchase agreement which gave the owners/respondents aright to repossess the vehicle on the hirer failing to pay any of the instalments or any sums due under the agreement; or to observe any of the terms of the agreement, or on his being convicted of a criminal offence. The respondents repossessed the vehicle when the hirer defaulted in payment of instalments because he was serving a sentence of two years in prison. Appellant had paid a total of Shs. 1,435/- of the agreed hire-purchase price of Shs. 3,347/- and his contention was that he was willing to continue the payments now that he had been released from prison. The trial magistrate on the evidence before him which he fully examined and evaluated found that the respondent company was perfectly justified in seizing and repossessing itself of the Scooter as the appellant had defaulted in the payment of the instalments due. On appeal to the High Court the appellant alleged impropriety in the proceedings in the lower court and argued that the respondent company “had broken agreement.”

            Held: (1) “With regard to the first ground of appeal, that the learned magistrate refused the appellant’s request to call witnesses, this is manifestly false, as it is recorded in the proceedings, the authenticity of which I have not the slightest hesitation in accepting, that after the evidence of his two witnesses had been recorded, the appellant is recorded as saying “I have no more witnesses”. In any event when asked by this Court what evidence these witnesses could give, the appellant stated that they were company officials who could give evidence as to the directions given for seizing the vehicle, which I do not consider would have been material to the case. (2) “With regard to the second ground, that there was an agreement that the appellant would be given three months grace to pay instalments due, as expressly stated in the Hire Purchase Agreement, the company was entitled to seize the vehicle immediately and without notice, on the failure to pay any instalment due.” (3) “With regard to the last Ground, “that the defendant later promised to give back the Scooter but before it was so done the case was dismissed” which incidentally, hardly makes sense; there was not a shred of evidence to support such allegation. As demonstrated, it is not disputed that the appellant was in arrear with the payment of the monthly instalments and according to his own letter written from prison, even if he was allowed time, he could not pay such instalments until April, 1968. the respondent magistrate, in seizing and repossessing itself of the vehicle. (4) Appeal dismissed.