IN THE FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATES COURT
AT SUVA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Action No. 153/2010

BETWEEN:

JANTY ENTERPRISES LIMITED
a limited liability company having its
office at 36 Auckland Street, Vatuwaqa, Suva.
PLAINTIFF

AND:

GOVERNMENT SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT
having its place of business at Walu Bay, Suva.
FIRST DEFENDANT

AND :

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FIJI
SECOND DEFENDANT

Mr. Naidu for the Plaintiff 
Ms. Devi for the Defendants 

JUDGMENT

1.	The Plaintiff filed a writ of summons against the defendants seeking following orders inter alia: 

(i)	Judgment in the sum of $38,798.44
(ii)	Interest on the Judgment Sum at the rate of 15% per annum until full payment but limited to the Jurisdiction of the Court
(iii)	Costs
(iv)	Such further reliefs and orders as this Honorable Court deems fit in the circumstances.

2.	The basis for this claim was that the nonpayment of Plaintiff's Invoice No. 00021412 by the 1st Defendant. 

3.	The defendants upon verification of the documents admitted to a portion of the sum claimed and paid $32,183 to the Plaintiff on 27th August 2010. The defendant disputed balance $6,615.36 and filed his statement of Defence on 17th August 2010 and served on the Plaintiff on 19th August 2010. The Plaintiff filed his reply on 06th September 2010.

4.	Minutes of Pre- Trial conference was filed on 02nd March 2011 in which following facts were agreed. 

1)	The Plaintiff is a limited liability company having its registered office at 36 Ackland Street, Vatuwaqa, Suva 18 Aurora Avenue.

2)	The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of wholesale supply of stationery products. 

3)	The first defendant on or about 27th August 2010 paid to the Plaintiff a sum of $32,183,08 out of $38,798.44 claimed.

5.	The parties agreed that the following issues need to be determined by this Court.

1.	Whether the Defendants owe the Plaintiff the sum of $6,615.36?
2.	Whether the Defendants owe any interest on the total sum claimed? Is the Plaintiff entitled to judgment in the sum of $10,000.00?

6.	The hearing was conducted on 04th December 2013 and after that both parties were invited to file closing submissions which they filed accordingly. I would address about the submissions later in my judgment. Before that I would summarize the evidence presented in the hearing in the following manner. 

7.	For the plaintiff only one witness was called. Mr. Janend Singh the Sales Manager of the Plaintiff said that they were supplying Government Supplies Department (1st Defendant) for 15 years. He supplied the goods and the invoice was signed by the authorized officer. In cross examination he said he delivered the goods to the store man. The plaintiff also marked following documents as Exhibits and closed his case. 

8.	For the defendant also one witness was called. Ms. Vula who is an account staff with the procurement office stated that she was involved in account portion of the transaction and as the signature was not verified they did not pay the disputed amount. Also she tendered the records to show that there was no increase in stock of markers and manila folders for that period. 

9.	In the closing submission filed by the Plaintiff they submitted there was a valid contract between the parties and they have supplied the goods based on that. The Plaintiff drew the attention of this Court to HP Kasabia Ltd Fiji Development Bank [ 2000] FJHC where it was said "It is trite law that a contract is complete upon offer, acceptance of offer and the existence of consideration." 

10.	The defendant in his closing submission took the position that the Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence that the Plaintiff company delivery staff had taken steps to authenticate the authority of the person receiving the goods. They rely on the case of Galbraith and Grant Ltd v Block [1922] 2K.B 155 where it was held that under the contract where the seller of goods is required to deliver them at the buyer's premises, the seller fulfills his obligation if he delivers them there to a person who apparently has authority to receive them, taking care to see that no unauthorized person receives them.

11.	Having considered the evidence as well as the respective submissions filed by the parties I would pronounce my judgment in the following manner.

12.	I do not think there is dispute about the agreement. The defendant has admitted the agreement by paying substantial amount from the Claim. They disputed this amount as they could not verify the signature in the invoice No. 00021412. 

13.	The witness called by the Plaintiff said he personally attended to delivery on the 1st Defendant and the Invoice was acknowledged by the same person who also received previous deliveries. 

14.	The defendant's argument in his evidence as well as in his closing submission was that as they could not verify the signature they do not want to pay this amount in the invoice. 

15.	I do not think the Plaintiff is making a false claim. As stated by the witness they had dealing for more than 15 years with the 1st defendant and no reason for them to make a false claim for this amount. 

16.	According to them the invoice was signed by the same officer who also signed the earlier invoices. When asked by the Court the counsel for the defendant informed that this officer was no longer in the service. But they could have made some effort to call him as a witness as he would have been the crucial witness in this case. The defendant did not call him as a witness. The witness called by the Defendant was dealing only with accounts matters and could say only that they did not notice any increase of stocks. 

17.	But I am prepared to accept the evidence given by Plaintiff's witness which I find credible. Therefore I decide that the Plaintiff has proved his claim on balance of probabilities. 

18.	. Accordingly I grant the following orders.

a)	Judgment in the sum of $6,615.36
b)	Interest of 5% per annum from the date of judgment until full payment. (Total sum with the interest not to exceed $50,000) 
c)	Cost of $1000.00 summarily determined to be paid to the Plaintiff.

19.	07 days to file notice of Intention to appeal. 

20th February 2014

H.S.P.Somaratne
Resident Magistrate, Suva