MAN TRUCK BUS AG VS HIPPO TRANSPORT & ORS

By Court: Having heard from both parties on an application to set aside Entry of Judgment filed on 19th May, 2023 for the Stay of Execution pursuant to the said Entry of Judgment and having perused all the processes filed before this Court by both parties, the Court is of the reasoned opinion that the application is without merits. From Exhibit ‘B’, the Plaintiff had prayed for specific reliefs: ‘a – f’, as endorsed on their Writ of Summons, Exhibit ‘A’. And at page 26 of Exhibit ‘B’, which is the Judgment of the Court, those stated reliefs were granted as endorsed on the Writ at a contractual rate of 8% per annum. And this 8% interest rate is also endorsed on the Writ as relief ‘g’ and same was granted by the Court as well. In Exhibit ‘C’, the Entry of Judgment, the Plaintiff remunerated the amount of its relief and then when the interest rate was calculated, how much it will amount to for all the reliefs. The Plaintiff concedes that in relief ‘a’, there was a misstatement in the calculation of the interest which had read “interest on the sum 273,969.20 Euros at 8% per annum from 25th September, 2016 to the date of final payment” instead of “to the date of Judgment; 25th November, 2021”. Plaintiff further argues that the subsequent statement which is (post judgment interest continues to accrue at a daily rate of 65.23 from 26th November 2021 till the date of final payment) goes to show that a genuine error was made. And thus, the Court should treat this as a misnomer.

Counsel for the application sought to raise a point of Law that they have been prejudiced by this misstatement and also the daily amount of 65.23 is not reflective of 8% on a daily basis. The Court opines that indeed, the misstatement in relief ‘a’ constitutes a misnomer because when relief ‘a’ as stated in the Judgment is read as a whole, it is clear that the Plaintiff intended that the interest should be up to 25th November, 2021.

Secondly, the argument that the daily rate amount being charged is incorrect, especially, when the Applicant did not produce before this Court an alternative calculation to enable the Court appreciate same is untenable. It is untenable because there is nothing before this Court to make the comparison. On the authority of Majolagbe v. Larbi [1959] GLR, the Applicants’ application fails. The Entry of Judgment stands. The Court will order that the error concerning the final payment in relief ‘a’ be amended to read “the date of final payment which is 25th Novembe