Alvin William Bruce v Rocky Ramnarine Jamie Ramnarine

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Judge: Mr. Justice R. Rahim
• Judgment Date: 17 December 2024
• Neutral Citation: TT 2024 HC 321
• Docket Number: Claim No. CV2021-02834
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)

Between

Alvin William Bruce

Kammala Ramoutar

Claimants

and

Rocky Ramnarine Jamie Ramnarine

Defendants

Before

the Honourable Mr. Justice R. Rahim

Claim No. CV2021-02834

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Appearances:

Claimants: A. Manwah

Defendants: V. Seepersad

1 This is a claim for monies due under a verbal agreement between the parties and evidenced by receipts and cheques. The Claimants borrowed money from the Defendants at various times and at various interest rates but contend that they have repaid the full amounts borrowed. The loans were documented by receipts, but there is no written agreement as to the interest rate on the amounts borrowed. The Defendants say the Claimants have not paid the amounts owed on the dates payable and that a substantial amount is outstanding.

2 This case also involves allegations of defamation based on statements made on Facebook by the First Defendant

Claim

3 The Claimants, husband and wife, seek repayment of money paid by them to the Defendants in excess of funds repaid on loans made by the Defendant to the Claimants between December 10, 2020 and March 23, 2021. On different occasions the Claimants borrowed several sums of money totalling $1,100,000.00 and made several repayments totalling $1,600,000.00 including interest. According to the First Claimant the purpose of the loans was to finance shortfalls in the projects in which he was involved. He is the Managing Director of his company Arion Contractors Limited, so that the presumption is that when he refers to projects he is referring to construction projects.

4 The Claimants rely on a pre-action protocol letter dated June 16, 2021 purportedly written by the Defendants' former attorney detailing the sums borrowed as the basis for alleging what sums were actually borrowed and paid.

5 Additionally, the Claimants say that the Defendants published defamatory statements about them on Facebook between April 16, 2021 and the date of filing their claim on August 27, 2021, accusing them of being dishonest, untrustworthy, con artists, and fraudsters. The Claimants aver that these statements were false, damaged their reputation, and caused distress, embarrassment and anxiety.

6 They seek:

• i. Repayment of the amounts owed to them being sums that have been overpaid.

• ii. Damages for libel.

• iii. An injunction restraining the Defendants whether by themselves, their servants and/or agents or howsoever otherwise from further publishing or causing to be published, the said words or any words similarly defamatory of the Claimants.

Defence and Counterclaim

7 Rocky, the first named Defendant, is a businessman who trades under the name Rocky Transport in the trucking and aggregate business. His wife who is the second named Defendant, and the second named Claimant are cousins.

8 According to the Defendants between January 24, 2021 and April 4, 2021 the Claimants borrowed on several separate occasions various sums of monies from the Defendants totalling $1,955,000.00. During this period the Claimants repaid $190,000.00 leaving an outstanding balance of $1,765,000.00. Receipts and post-dated cheques were issued for the loans, but several cheques were returned due to insufficient funds.

9 The Defendants also dispute the accuracy of the June pre-action protocol letter, claiming it is an unagreed document and that the police man with whom they interacted when they made a report at the fraud squad was the one who wrote the letter without their knowledge and consent. In fact, they say that they were unaware that he was a lawyer.

10 The First Defendant admitted that some of the words complained of, were published from his Facebook profile but contend that the post was justified, truthful, and made out of frustration about the unpaid debt. Nonetheless, the Defendants argue that the Claimants failed to provide sufficient evidence of publication, the context of the alleged defamatory statements, or their full content, as required under Part 73.2 of the CPR.

11 The Defendants have filed a counterclaim for the sum of $1,765,000.00 or such other amount as determined by the court being the amount due and owing to them from the Claimants for breach of contract.

Defence to Counterclaim

12 The Claimants aver that the time for repayment of any monies borrowed was not fixed at one month but varied according to how the Claimants were to receive payment from the projects. They have also admitted that cheques payments were stopped.

Evidence

Claimant

13 The first named Claimant gave evidence for himself and on behalf of the second named Claimant, while the Defendants gave evidence for themselves.

Alvin Bruce

14 From December 10, 2020 to March 23, 2021 Alvin and his wife borrowed monies from the Defendants totalling $1,100,000.00 and repaid the sum of $1,600,000.00 inclusive of interest.

15 Alvin listed the repayments and dates as follows:

14-10-2020	$110,000.00
29-10-2020	$130,000.00
05-12-2020	$ 55,000.00
10-12-2020	$590,000.00
08-01-2021	$ 40,000.00
27-01-2021	$650,000.00
02-02-2021	$130,000.00
25-03-2021	$ 80,000.00
31-03-2021	$ 40,000.00
01-04-2021	$ 60,000.00
16-04-2021	$ 10,000.00
Total	$1,895,000.00

16 Some receipts for money he paid on the loans were attached to his witness statement but he misplaced the others 1. The receipts are as follows:

• i. December 10, 2020 $590,000.00;

• ii. January 8, 2021 $40,000.00 to be repaid by January 12, 2021;

• iii. January 24, 2021 $650,000.00;

• iv. March 25, 2021 $80,000 (1st payment);

• v. March 31, 2021 $40,000 (2nd payment);

• vi. April 1st, 2021 $60,000.00 (3 ^rd payment);

• vii. April 16, 2021 $10,000.00 (4th payment).

  Total = 1,470,000.00.

17 The court notes that the receipts (save and except January 8, 2021) make no mention of interest, loan term or repayment date.

18 According to Alvin he repaid the Defendants in full together with the interest charged. They were paid according to how Alvin's company received payments from its projects. Regarding the FCB cheques he stopped payment on April 20, 2021 2.

19 By pre-action protocol letter dated June 16, 2021 from the Defendants' attorney, the Defendants wrote to the Claimants calling upon them to pay the balance owing in the sum of $1,765,000.00. Alvin contends that the receipts signed by the Defendants show that the Defendants were paid $1,600,000.00 3.

20 In response to this letter, Alvin's attorney on July 30, 2021 4 disputed the outstanding balance and enquired into a breakdown between the

principal and interest and alleged that the Claimants overpaid the Defendants and therefore denied that any money was owed to them

21 There was a further letter to the Defendants Attorney, Bassarath, in response to the June pre-action protocol letter, in which the Claimants refer to their letter of July 30, 2021 and the Defendants letter of July 30, 2021 5. The court notes that this letter, written by the Defendants alleged Attorney at the time, Bassarath is not signed or stamped like the one written previously in June. Having regard however, to the subsequent ruling of the court it matters not.

22 Alvin alleged that from April 16, 2021 the Defendants made defamatory statements against him and his wife through posts on Facebook when he posted:

• a. Send him to jail

• b. A set of con ppl trying to rob me my money

• c. You are big woman and lying so much

• d. Father like son Alvin don't let people tear fall on your family be ah big man

• e. A whole dam family full of uneducated liars and con artist

• f. Hurting, robbing and destroying peoples lives are their hobbies.

23 These included photographs of the Claimants, allegations of dishonesty, fraud, and being con artists 6. These publications, he asserted, harmed his business and he and his wife have suffered considerable distress, embarrassment and anxiety as a result.

Cross-examination

24 Alvin was asked to examine several posts and determine whether they referred to him or his wife. The first post (page 24–27 of trial bundle 3) refers to evil people with the author, a woman, discussing a female relative who refuses to repay money lent. Some comments on the post say that ‘Rocky’ should get back his money, that a couple is making him beg for what is rightfully his and that ‘Rocky’ has a family. A comment from ‘Rocky Ramnarine’ in response to another user states that his post has been reported to ‘fb’ but that he will continue to post it so people can see how ‘they’ are distressing people.

25 As for the defamatory statements pleaded by the Claimants, Alvin was referred to the posts in question. He accepted that the comment Send him to Jail was made by another user Sintra Dinoo and not by the Defendants.

26 The post A set of con ppl trying to rob me my money and you are a big woman and lying so much was written by Rocky Ramnarine, tagging 49 other persons. There is no mention of the Claimants but the posts do mention the writer's frustration at being told he should get his money back since May and the intention to silence him with a letter. There is no date or time of this post. Alvin accepted that the post does not refer to him or his wife and no date is mentioned.

27 In relation to the comment Father like son Alvin don't let people tear fall on your family be ah big man, Alvin accepted that this comment was written by Ranjan Arjoonsingh (pdf 35 of TB 3) and not by the Defendants

28 The two posts A whole dam family full of uneducated liars and con artist and Hurting, Robbing and destroying peoples lives are their hobbieswere written by an unknown person and did not refer to Alvin or his wife (pdf 35 of TB 3).

29 At pdf 49 under the heading ‘Rocky's post’ is a picture of a couple with a definition of defamation. Alvin testified that the Defendants' names are not mentioned but the photo shows him and his wife.

30 Alvin...