Leo Prince v Republic Bank (Grenada) Ltd.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GRENADA
AND THE WEST INDIES ASSOCIATED STATES
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CLAIM NO. GDAHCV 2011/0061
REPUBLIC BANK (GRENADA) LTD.
INCORPORATED TRUSTEE OF THE SEVENTH DAY
Ms. Celia Edwards, Q.C. with her Mr. Deloni Edwards for the Claimant
Ms. Keisha Lander for Defendant
2013: December 16
REASONS IN ORAL RULING
 MOHAMMED, J.: On the 22nd February 2013 the parties entered an agreement
arrived at mediation, into an order concerning motor vehicle PAD 634. Two of the
material terms of the said order was that, and I paraphrase, that the Defendant
shall return the motor vehicle PAD 634 to the Claimant and shall deliver to the
Claimant a certificate by Mr. Robert Miller of Anro Agencies Ltd. that the said
vehicle is in proper working order.
 The certificate of Robert Miller stated that the motor vehicle was in a road worthy
condition. He confirmed that two items were found to be defective but the items
did not affect the vehicle’s road worthiness.
(a) Air condition blower fan and system recharge.
(b) Left front door handle broken.
 The Claimant not being satisfied that the returned vehicle was not in “proper
working order” had his own inspection done and he received a report from Geo. F.
Huggins and Co. listing some ten defects.
 One of the source of the dispute between the parties is they agreed that the
vehicle is to be returned in “proper working condition” and Anro Agencies spoke to
the “road worthiness” of the vehicle. It is clear to me that both terms carry different
meanings and in my view, the term “proper working condition” is wider than the
“road worthiness” of the vehicle. In my view, “proper working condition” is to be
equated with mechanical since the verb is “working”.
 I will now deal into the items which the Claimant seeks to be compensated for.
(a) Scratches to the vehicle: – While the bank has admitted that it did not
perform an inspection of the vehicle upon receipt, the Claimant, who has
alleged the scratches upon return of the vehicle, did not persuade me that
the vehicle was without scratches when it was seized. In keeping with my
interpretation of “proper working condition”, I find that the scratches do not
fall into my definition of “proper working condition”.
(b) Left front door handle: – The Claimant stated that he knew that this was
working when the vehicle was seized since he opened all the doors of his
vehicle to empty its contents. Jay Buckmire, representative of the bank, in
whose care the vehicle was, admitted that a third person cleaned the motor
vehicle,but he did not personally open the left door. In light of the evidence I
am satisfied that the left front door handle was broken while in the custody
of the bank, and in particular, the broken handle while not affecting road
worthiness, affects the “proper working condition” of the vehicle.
(c) While I accept that the vehicle was not a new vehicle, based on the
evidence of the Claimant that the air condition system was working when it
was seized, and that the Bank had a duty to ensure that the vehicle was
maintained, I find that the air condition system which was not working is to
(d) The Bank has admitted that during the three years it had the vehicle in it
possession, it did not service the vehicle. This I consider to be of great
concern since while I accept that there is necessarily wear and tear of a
vehicle over a period of time, in this case the Bank had a duty of care to
ensure that the vehicle was kept in a location and serviced to ensure that
any wear and tear would not have been accelerated.
(e) Television/computer screen: – The Claimant’s evidence is the
television/computer screen was working when it was seized and upon return
there were blotches. Since the bank did not do an inspection of the vehicle
on seizure, and there was no evidence of servicing, I find that the Bank is to
repair this since it is an important aspect of the vehicle being in “proper
(f) There was no evidence specifically the Claimant of the condition of the Left
Hand side mirror, Right Hand rear door window, Right Hand front door
handle; Right Hand rocker panel, front and rear wipers. I therefore I make
no finding on these items.
(g) The Claimant stated that the leather upholstery of the vehicle was in good
condition before the vehicle was seized. I do not consider this to be
necessary for the vehicle to be in “proper working condition”. In my view,
this is an accessory and is not mechanical.
 I therefore order the Defendant to comply with the mediation agreement made by
the order with respect to my aforesaid findings namely Television/ computer
screen, Air condition and left front door handle.
 I will hear both parties on costs of the application.
 Cost of the application agreed $1,250.00.
Margaret Y. Mohammed
High Court Judge