{"issue_text":"In circumstances where the lender is not a registered money lender for the purposes of the Act, and where he has entered into an oral agreement for the advance of money to a borrower, is the lender legally entitled to charge interest at the rate of 4%?","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Plaintiff advanced money at 4% per month interest; Plaintiff not registered; Oral agreement; Document signed after loan"}
{"issue_text":"If not, what rate of interest is the lender entitled to claim?","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Same as above"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the document signed by the defendant meets the requirements of Section 14(1) of the Money Lending and Interest Rates Act","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Document signed 3 years after loan advancement; Signed by borrower alone; Not dated"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The plaintiff, a businessman, advanced various sums of money to the defendant, also a businessman, during 2010-2011 based on an oral agreement with 4% monthly interest. The plaintiff was not a registered money lender. A document acknowledging the debt and interest rate was signed by the defendant three years after the loan was advanced. The plaintiff sued for the outstanding balance plus interest at 4%, while the defendant argued the interest rate was illegal under the Money Lending Act.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases