JUDGMENT

Akhtar Tahir J:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff's claim is for the return of the sum of money remitted to the Plaintiff from a 3rd party deposited in the 1st Defendant's Bank account at the behest of the 2nd Defendant and now being wrongfully withheld by the Defendants.

[2] There is a chequered history to the proceeding in this case which arose as a result of a number of appeals to the Court of Appeal which resulted in remittance back from the Court of Appeal. The Court do not intend to elaborate the details here.

[3] Suffice to state that the present remittance to this Court from the Court of Appeal is to continue with the Trial by hearing the evidence of the Defendants which the Court had earlier expunged from record.

[4] This Court had barred the 2nd Defendant from testifying on behalf of the Defendants at the trial as the Defendants had committed contempt of a Court of Appeal order directing the Defendants to deposit a sum of money to Court which they had failed to do.

[5] This Court resumed the trial as directed by the Court of Appeal and considered the entire evidence of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant before allowing the Plaintiff's claim.

The Brief Facts

[6] Shorn of all its technicalities and details the dispute in this case revolves around the remittance of money by a company called Calfin Capital Private Limited ("Calfin") to the 1st Defendant's Bank account.

[7] Whilst the 2nd Defendant was still its Director the Plaintiff a registered limited liability company had entered into a Promissory Note Agreement having a face value of USD 10 million with companies called Calfin Capital Private Limited ("Calfin"‌) and Gouetephone Tecnology Private Limited ("GTP"‌) on 12 November 2017. This promissory note was insured by Arcipelago Insurance Limited ("AIL"‌) with a premium of USD 150,000.00.

[8] On 4 December 2017 the Plaintiff whilst the 2nd Defendant was still a Director of the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Calfin to provide a secured loan of USD 5.25 million on a condition that the owner of Calfin issue a personal cheque which was to be kept in custody of AIL.

[9] The 2nd Defendant resigned as a Director of the Plaintiff on 8 December 2017 whereby Yatin Anantrai Trivedi was appointed on 22 February 2017 additional Director together with Samer an existing Director.

[10] On 30 March 2018 the Plaintiff instructed AIL to remit the sum of USD 5.25 million ("the said money") kept by them on behalf of Calfin to the Plaintiff's Director Samer. However, since the Plaintiff had no bank account the Plaintiff agreed with the suggestion of the 2nd Defendant that the money to be parked temporarily in trust, in the account of his company, the 1st Defendant.

[11] The dispute in this case leading to the filing of this claim in Court arose after the money was transferred by Calfin to the 1st Defendant's account and Defendants failed to release the said sum of money to the Plaintiff upon the repeated instructions and request of the Plaintiff.

The Issue

[12] There is a competing claim to the money remitted whereby the Plaintiff claims the ownership of the money as it was a repayment of the loan given to Calfin. The Defendants on the other hand contend that the money is the payment for the service rendered by the 2nd Defendant under a joint venture agreement, by enabling the Plaintiff's commercial transaction with Calfin.

[13] The Court in this case determined that the competing claims by the parties can be resolved by determining the purpose the said of money was remitted by AIL and deposited into the account of the 1st Defendant.

The Purpose Of The Remittance

[14] In order to determine the purpose for the remittance of the money the sequence of events that transpired in this case must be looked at. The sequence leading to the remittance of the said money is reflected in the documents adduced in this case. The documents adduced are listed below following the sequence of events:

Letter To AIL

[15] The first seque