Justice Nicole Pierre on Wednesday ruled in favour of Dorwain Bess, the Director of SBF International Inc., in a dispute regarding a debt owed by Mr. Rohan Sarjoo. The case, involving significant quantities of diesel fuel sold to Sarjoo in 2020, was brought before the court after the defendant failed to honour payments owed.
The ruling came after the defence counsel, led by Mr. Adrian Thompson, presented a no-case submission. Thompson argued that the claimant, SBF International Inc., had not proven its legal existence, nor had it demonstrated that Dorwain Bess was authorised to act on its behalf.
Thompson also challenged the credibility of the evidence presented by Bess, who was represented by Attorney-at-Law Reon Miller, claiming that the documents tendered were inadmissible and not credible as Bess was not their maker. Justice Pierre, however, rejected all grounds presented in the no-case submission.
Justice Pierre in meticulously addressing the defence’s objections, firstly asserted that SBF International Inc. had not proven its legal existence.
She stated, “The defendant admitted the existence of the company and said it dealt with one of its directors, Mr. Anand Sanasie.” She further noted that in his witness statement, Sarjoo himself acknowledged dealing with Sanasie as a director of SBF International Inc., a fact corroborated during cross-examination when the defence used a resolution of the company, affirming its legal existence. The court concluded that the legal existence of the company had never been in dispute during the case, rendering the first ground of the no-case submission “insupportable.”
The second ground, which questioned Bess’s authority to act on behalf of SBF International, was also dismissed by the court. Justice Pierre highlighted that the affidavit submitted by Bess clearly stated that he was the Executive Director of the company and was “duly authorized to swear this application.” Furthermore, during cross-examination, the defence did not contest Bess’s authority, and the uncontested exhibits, including resolutions of the company, established his role.
The court reinforced this position by citing the Companies Act, which grants directors the authority to represent and manage the affairs of the company. Justice Pierre ruled this ground as “insupportable,” affirming Bess’s authority as Director.
The credibility of the evidence presented by Bess was another point of contention in the no-case submission. Justice Pierre noted that Bess had consistently stated that the facts were within his personal knowledge as CEO of SBF International.
“The fact that Dorwain Bess was not the person who wrote out the invoice nor pumped the fuel does not mean that it is not within his personal knowledge that fuel was sold to the defendant,” she stated. The court found no issue with Bess’s reliance on company records to substantiate the transactions and ruled that the evidence was credible and admissible.
The final ground related to the admissibility of documents, which the defence argued were not credible because Bess was not their maker. However, Justice Pierre pointed out that the defence had consented to the admission of the documents during trial without objection.
She further referenced regulations regarding the notice to prove documents, stating that no such notice had been served prior to the trial. “Those documents now form part of the record and have been admitted in proof of their content. They are credible,” she ruled, dismissing the final ground of the no-case submission.
Anand Sanasie played a crucial role in the proceedings, with his involvement as a director of SBF International being frequently referenced throughout the trial. Sarjoo had acknowledged his dealings with Sanasie, and the court repeatedly referred to the significance of his directorial role within the company in affirming the credibility and legal standing of SBF International.
In her final ruling, Justice Pierre found that SBF International had successfully proven its case on a balance of probabilities. She concluded that Sarjoo owed the claimant for the two fuel deliveries made in 2020 and ordered judgment in favour of SBF International for the value of the fuel, and interest, along with costs.
The court also denied the defendant’s request for a stay of execution on the judgment, ruling that there was no evidence that Sarjoo would be ruined or that his appeal would be stifled if he were required to pay the judgment immediately.
Furthermore, there was no indication that SBF International would be unable to repay the sum if the appeal succeeded and as suc, Justice Pierre ruled that the judgment should be paid forthwith.
