Posted by on Dec 12, 2020 in Uncategorized |

This was a dispute over the defendant`s refusal to disclose a certificate of ownership on the basis of an agreement on the matter. The first question was whether the defendant was entitled not to disclose the certificate of title belonging to the applicants. The Tribunal found that the defendant`s conduct, in refusing to release the title, had led to the belief of intentional non-compliance with the defendant, who was using only Mala fides` alleged (false) behaviour as a farce. The Tribunal therefore found that the defendant`s conduct was unjustifiable. With respect to the damage to the dense, the Tribunal argued that the applicants had given the impression that the title was declassified for certain agreements that were thwarted by the defendant`s unjustified conduct. It therefore awarded general damages. Similarly, the court awarded punitive damages for the repressive and proud behaviour of the accused. However, the court accepted that the defendant`s actions prevented it from easing its debt and thereby creating a conflict of interest. It therefore released the payment of interest incurred within the relevant time, thus sniffing out the corresponding counter-claims for that period. The second question was whether the behaviour led to a loss for the complainants. With respect to the question of whether there were losses in profits because the complainants were devalued from the elimination of their debt, the Tribunal found that there was insufficient evidence to support them. Similarly, the Tribunal found that the conduct of the interest instalment owed to another creditor had led to the applicant`s payment of interest not being proven.

It therefore dismissed the complaint on both the shortfall and the payment of interest.