{"issue_text":"Whether \"without prejudice\" letter dated 3 April 2017 was admissible in evidence","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Contents of letter promising to verify interest"}
{"issue_text":"Whether court a quo erred in awarding costs on higher scale","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Application was contested"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
Appellants had credit facility with respondent bank. Default judgment entered in 2015 for US$151,981.23 capital, US$24,716.11 interest and US$81 bank charges. Two years later, appellants claimed interest overcharge of US$25,266.13. Bank refused verification citing res judicata. Appellants applied under r 449 to vary judgment or obtain account debatement. High Court dismissed application ruling "without prejudice" letter inadmissible.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases