{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in refusing to grant default judgment on basis of justus error when validity of Deed was not properly before it","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Respondent raised computational errors in opposing affidavit without counter-application"}
{"issue_text":"Whether respondent could challenge validity of Deed through opposing affidavit without instituting proper proceedings","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Rule 229A requires counter-application for such attack"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellant bank extended two pre-shipment finance facilities to the respondent in 2011. When the respondent defaulted, parties concluded a Deed of Settlement in 2013 for US$4,556,777.78. The appellant later applied for default judgment under clause 2 of the Deed when respondent stopped payments. The High Court refused to grant judgment, finding the Deed was concluded on mistaken calculations. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that validity of Deed was not properly before the court.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases