In this action, the plaintiff
prays for the following relief:1. The sum of USD5,753=90.2. Interest on the said sum at
the prescribed rate from the date of service of the summons to date of payment.3. Costs of suit on attorney and
client scale.The background to the claim is
captured in the plaintiff's declaration as ...
In this action, the plaintiff
prays for the following relief:
1. The sum of USD5,753=90.
2. Interest on the said sum at
the prescribed rate from the date of service of the summons to date of payment.
3. Costs of suit on attorney and
client scale.
The background to the claim is
captured in the plaintiff's declaration as follows.
On 25 October 2005, the plaintiff
and the first defendant entered into a three year lease agreement in respect of
the first defendant's property known as the “boardroom.” The salient feature of
the lease agreement, for the purposes of this judgment, was that it did not
cover the issue of security. However, clause (W) of the lease agreement
provided as follows:
“Other matters not embraced by
this agreement could always be discussed by both parties and streamlined
accordingly.”
In line with the above clause, it
is alleged the parties agreed that the first defendant would arrange and secure
security for the premises and the plaintiff would pay a certain percentage of
the security charges. The record shows that the plaintiff was invoiced for
security services offered by the second defendant. The first and second
defendants, however, deny that such an arrangement was ever put in place.
On 18 April 2008, the leased
premises were broken into resulting in the plaintiff losing the following
goods:
(i)
Five (5) Atec Central Processing Units (CPUs).
(ii)
One (1) CPU Atec casing with CDRom and motherboard less hard drive.
(iii)
One Flat Screen monitor with an LCD screen.
(iv)
Samsung lightscribe DVD and CD burner.
(v)
Fifty (50) Software CDs.
(vi)
Ten (10) blank CDs.
(vii)
One (1) blank DVD.
(viii)
Linux, Internet biling and Antivirus software.
(ix)
USB cable for digital camera.
(x)
Telephone codes.
The plaintiff, through this
action, now prays for the replacement value of the stolen goods from both defendants,
the one paying the other to be absolved….,.
In terms of the pre-trial
conference minute the issues that fall for determination in this judgement were
listed as follows:-
“1. Whether first defendant did
not agree to provide security for the leased premises?
2. What was the purpose of the
security services?
3. Whether second defendant was
not contracted to provide the security services at the leased premises?
4. Whether first defendant/second
defendant are liable for plaintiff's loss in any way?
5. What is the reasonable value of plaintiff's
lost goods?”
