Supreme Court of Mauritius, 25 juin 2020, 2020 INT 83 – VACOAS POPULAR MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY V PIERRE DANTES ANTHONY

1

VACOAS POPULAR MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY V PIERRE DANTES ANTHONY

2020 INT 83

CN:- 175/19 THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS (Civil Division) In the matter of:- Vacoas Popular Multi-Purpose Cooeperative Society Plaintiff v/s Pierre Anthony Dantes Defendant JUDGEMENT The plaintiff is averring that defendant is indebted to it in the sum of Rs. 808,834 being an amount due by the defendant for an advanced loan taken from the plaintiff and that although the latter has been called upon to settle the said debt, he has failed and neglected to do so. The plaintiff is therefore praying for a judgment from this court condemning and ordering the defendant to pay the said amount due together with the sum of Rs. 80,883.40, representing 10% Attorney’s Commission, making a total amount of Rs. 889,717.40, with costs and interests.

The defendant has denied being indebted to the defendant and has put the plaintiff to the proof therefore. The defendant has further averred that in fact on 26 February 2005 he did a favour to one Mr. Mario Ayelou, by standing as guarantor for him to enable the latter to take the said loan. He was made to affix his signature and initials on some documents without being explained of the contents of the said documents by an officer and/or agent and/or préposé of the plaintiff. He did so under the belief that it was the said Ayelou who was taking the loan. He was never handed any loan money and it was the said Ayelou who cashed same. It was only when he was served with the notice of denunciation dated 20 October 2016, that he became aware that the said Mario Ayelou had taken the loan in his name while he had wrongly believed all this time that he had only stood as guarantor for the latter. The defendant is thus averring that he is not

indebted in the sum claimed or in any other sum as he was induced the said Ayelou to sign the loan application form. The defendant has further averred that the plaintiff acted in breach of the provisions of the Borrower Protection Act 2007 by failing to fulfill its obligations under the act as more fully described in the plea. The defendant is therefore averring that the credit agreement is null and void to all intents and purposes and cannot be legally enforced against him and he has moved that the plaint be dismissed with costs.

Both the plaintiff and the defendant have adduced evidence in court and I have duly considered same. The plaintiff was duly represented by its employee in court. She produced several documents to establish the averments of the plaint. Her version was not challenged in cross examination. The defendant for his part admitted in court that he was indebted in the sum due and that as per the documents produced, he was the one who applied for the loan and that money was disbursed to him. He however reiterated that it was the said Ayelou who had cashed the money and he stated that the latter was willing to settle the said debt for him. The said Ayelou deposed under oath and confirmed the version of the defendant as far as he is concerned and he further undertook in court to settle the debt due in the name of the defendant.

Conclusion Bearing in mind the admission of the defendant and the overwhelming evidence that stands against him, I find that the plaintiff has successfully proved its case against the defendant on a balance of probabilities. I accordingly order the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 889,717.40 inclusive of 10% Attorney’s commission, together with interest at the legal rate as from the date of the lodging of the present action until the date of final payment. With Costs.

I.Dookhy-Rambarun (Mrs) Magistrate, Intermediate Court 25 June 2020