SRU-HVJ-2018-34 Civil Law

SRU-HVJ-2018-34
Authority
Court of Justice
Case number
GR-14654J
Judgment date
16 March 2018
Publication date
05 April 2019
Jurisdiction
Civil law
Content Indication
Law of obligations. Claim made by the intimidated party plausible. It is not sufficient for the appellant to simply dispute the claim, even though he himself has admitted that he owes amounts to the respondent. In the opinion of the Court, it is sufficiently plausible that the appellant owes the amounts claimed by the respondent.Extrajudicial costs not allowable since it has neither been stated nor shown that the parties agreed that an amount of 15% in extrajudicial costs would be due in the event of non-payment of the claim.

‍EXECUTION
THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF SURINAME
in the case of[appellant],residing in [district],appellant in summary proceedings, further to be referred to as [appellant], Agent: mr. A.E. Debipersad, lawyer,
against
[respondent],residing in [district],respondent in interlocutory proceedings, hereinafter referred to as "[respondent]", Agent: Mr. H. Matawlie, lawyer,
on the appeal from the judgment of November 15, 2001 (A.R.No. 01-1927) rendered by the Subdistrict Judge of the First Subdistrict in summary proceedings between [the respondent] as plaintiff and [the appellant], as defendant,the Acting President, in the name of the Republic, pronounces the following judgment.
Proceedings on appeal
The proceedings on appeal are evidenced by the following pleadings: - a written pleading dated October 5, 2012 with exhibits; - a memorandum of reply dated January 18, 2013; - a reply pleading dated April 5, 2013 with one exhibit, also containing a request for rectification of the appellant's first name; and - a rejoinder and statement of exhibits dated June 7, 2013, in which [respondent] agreed to the requested rectification.

The established facts
1. [appellant] owes any amount of money to [itimated].
The contentions and defenses at first instance and the opinion of the subdistrict court.
2. [appellant] argues that he delivered to [appellant] in 1995 a quantity of tiles and in 1996 a quantity of pipes and a car to a total amount of Nf 21,000, - which amount [appellant] has not repaid despite reminders. [intimate] claims this amount plus an amount of extrajudicial collection costs from [appellant]. [appellant] put forward a number of formal defenses, which will be dealt with below, in which he disputed the indebtedness of the said amount and in which he also argued that he did not owe the extrajudicial collection costs to [itimeerde]. The Subdistrict Court upheld [the defendant's] (primary) claim and also awarded the claimed amount of extrajudicial collection costs, ordering [the appellant] to pay the costs of the proceedings.
The assessment
3. The timely appealed [appellant] grouped his objections to the contested judgment under four so-called grievances, which will be dealt with successively. [The respondent] has put forward a defense to these. If necessary, these will be dealt with in the following
4. The first grievance under the heading 'Formal Defense' concerns the different names used for [appellant] and [intimate] in this case. However, now that he has withdrawn his defense that '[name 1]' is a different person than '[appellant]' by reply argument on appeal and has even requested rectification of his first name, this defense can be further disregarded. [appellant] further argues that [itimated] is not the same as the '[name 2]' appearing in the documents. This defense does not stand up, however. [appellant] himself wrote to [itimee] by letter dated June 20, 2000, using the name '[name 3]'. On appeal, although [appellant] disputes that he wrote this letter, he unconditionally acknowledged at first instance that this letter was sent by him to [itimated], so that this challenge made on appeal is passed over as covered. [Intimated] himself also states that he is referred to as [name 3], which again is not subsequently disputed by [appellant]. The court therefore comes to the conclusion that by '[name 2]' is meant the [Intimated]. This grievance therefore fails.
5. Ground 2 deals with the question whether a monetary claim can be claimed in summary proceedings. The answer to this is in the affirmative. It is established case law of the Court of Appeal that a monetary claim can be claimed in summary proceedings. This grievance is therefore also dismissed.5. Ground 2 deals with the question of whether a monetary claim can be pursued in summary proceedings. The answer to this is in the affirmative. It is established case law of the Court that a monetary claim can be claimed in summary proceedings. This grievance is therefore also dismissed.
6. In ground 3, [appellant] disputes that there is sufficient evidence to allow the claim to stand. The Court considers the following in this respect: In summary proceedings the question is whether a claim has become sufficiently plausible to be admissible. The question of whether the claim has been established may be addressed in proceedings on the merits. The Subdistrict Court bases its opinion, that the claim has become plausible, first of all on the above-mentioned letter from [appellant] to [the respondent] dated 20 June 2000, in which [appellant] writes 'That I have financial debts with you' and furthermore 'I have never denied and will never get it into my mind not to pay your debts, but the fact is that I do not yet have room to pay the total amount due to you. In view of my circumstances and my obligations as well as my income, I will deposit sf 500,000 (five hundred thousand) guilders each month at Your banking institution'. In addition, the Subdistrict Court noted that [appellant] had not responded to a letter from Mr. R.M.F. Oemar dated October 12, 2001, which indicated exactly to which transactions with [appellant] the claim of [the respondent] related. Based on both these documents, the Subdistrict Court reached its opinion that the alleged claim is plausible. The Court of Appeal shares the subdistrict court's opinion. Ook in hoger beroep is [appellant] niet inhoudelijk op deze stukken ingegaan. Hij heeft bijvoorbeeld niet aangegeven welke bedragen hij dan wel verschuldigd is aan [geïntimeerde] (als de vordering van [geïntimeerde] onjuist is) en op basis waarvan, welke bedragen hij inmiddels heeft voldaan en welke van de in de brief van mr. Oemar voornoemd genoemde transacties wel en welke niet hebben plaatsgevonden, terwijl dat, zeker in hoger beroep, wel op zijn weg lag. Hij kan niet volstaan met het eenvoudig betwisten van het gestelde, terwijl hij immers zelf heeft toegegeven bedragen schuldig te zijn aan [geïntimeerde]. Nu hij dit alles niet heeft gedaan is naar het oordeel van het Hof voldoende aannemelijk, dat [appellant] het door [geïntimeerde] gevorderde bedrag van Nf 21.000, — aan hem verschuldigd is. Dit deel van het vonnis van de kantonrechter kan derhalve met aanvulling van gronden worden bevestigd, met dien verstande dat de veroordeling tot betaling van Nf 21.000,– wordt omgezet in een veroordeling tot betaling van € 9.529,43, met de wettelijke rente daarover vanaf 24 april 2001. 
7. Grief 4 betreft de gevorderde en door de kantonrechter toegewezen schade van Nf 3.150, –. Ten aanzien daarvan overweegt het Hof het volgende. Het betreft hier de kosten van deskundige bijstand, bestaande uit 15% van de hoofdsom. Met [appellant] is het Hof van oordeel dat deze kosten niet toewijsbaar zijn, nu is gesteld, noch gebleken is dat partijen zijn overeengekomen dat een bedrag van 15% aan buitengerechtelijke kosten verschuldigd is bij niet-betaling van de vordering. Daarnaast heeft [geïntimeerde], ondanks de uitdrukkelijke betwisting door [appellant], geen bewijs bijgedragen dat deze kosten daadwerkelijk door hem zijn gemaakt. Onder die omstandigheden dient dit deel van de oorspronkelijke vordering te worden afgewezen en dient het vonnis van de kantonrechter in zoverre te worden vernietigd. Deze grief slaagt om die reden. Het Hof voegt daaraan toe, dat er geen reden is om het vonnis van de kantonrechter ten aanzien van de proceskosten te vernietigen, nu [appellant] in eerste aanleg als de voor het merendeel in het ongelijk gestelde partij de proceskosten dient te dragen. 
8. [appellant], as the prevailing party on appeal, must bear the costs of the proceedings.
The decision
Annuls the judgment of which appeal insofar as it concerns the order for payment by [appellant] to [respondent] of Nf 3,150 (three thousand one hundred and fifty Dutch guilders) and re-judges: Dismisses the claim;
2. Confirms the judgment of which appeal for the remainder with supplementary grounds and on the understanding that the order to pay Nf 21,000 (twenty-one thousand Dutch guilders) should be read as an order to pay € 9,529.43 (nine thousand five hundred and twenty-nine euros and forty-three cents),plus statutory interest from April 24, 2001;          
3. Order [appellant], as the party which for the most part is unsuccessful, to pay the costs of the proceedings incurred by [respondent], assessed up to the present judgment at nil.

Thus judged by Mr. D.D. Sewratan, President-in-Office and Mr. I.S. Chhangur-Lachitjaran and Mr. M.V. Kulda.
M.V. Kuldip Singh, Members and
pronounced by Mr. A.C. Johanns, Fungerend-President at the public hearing held on Friday, March 16, 2018, in the presence of Mr. S.C. Berenstein, Fungerend-Griffier.

The parties, the appellant represented by attorney Mr. T. Jhakry on behalf of attorney A.E. Debipersad, agent for the appellant and the respondent represented by lawyer H. Matawlie, agent of the respondent, appeared at the hearing.
For a copy
The Clerk of the Court of Justice,
M.E. van Genderen-Relyveld