Yama gets garnishee leave

National, Normal


BUSINESSMAN and former politician Peter Yama has won a crucial decision in court that could see him getting over K7.6 million owed to his security business by Motor Vehicle Insurance Limited (MVIL) direct from its bank account.
The National Court last Thursday granted Yama, the owner of Yama Security Services Ltd (YSS), leave to garnishee MVIL accounts held at the Bank South Pacific.
The application for garnishee absolute will be heard by Justice Bernard Sakora on Wednesday.
If this is granted, YSS will be paid direct by the bank holding the MVIL accounts.
MVIL owes YSS K7,617,301.32 in damages for breach of contract.
MVIL had tried to fight off this damage claim, and had even gone to the Supreme Court but had failed.
Last Wednesday, an exparte hearing by Mr Yama before Justice Sakora was interrupted by Kerenga Kua, counsel for MVIL, who had asked
to be heard.
Mr Kua claimed that financial settlement had been made. But Ben Lomai for YSS denied this.
Justice Sakora allowed Mr Kua to make his statement although he pointed out that this was an exparte application and should not have been interrupted as it was in “an abuse” of the National Court rules process.
The judge adjourned to allow Mr Kua to return  last Thursday with documented proof of the payments made to YSS.
On Thursday, however, no such documents were produced which triggered a tirade from the judge.
Justice Sakora said Mr Kua’s conduct amounted to an abuse of court process, and ruled in favour of the YSS.
He granted the leave to serve the garnishee notice on the bank.
The matter stemmed from an Aug 25, 2000, decision of the National Court which entered a judgment in favour of YSS in a sum of K4,398,937.85 with costs.
MVIL appealed against the said decision and on May 5, 2006, the Supreme Court quashed the appeal and upheld the order of the National Court.
The appellants further filed an application to re-open the matter and Supreme Court rejected the appellants’ application on Dec 2.
Following this, YSS wrote to the defendants’ lawyers to ensure settlement of K7,670,301.32 plus costs were settled.
But due to continued failure of the payment, garnishee proceedings were instituted.