JUDGMENT

Suffian FJ:

The plaintiff (respondent) lent $1,700 to the defendant (appellant). The defendant did not pay, and so the plaintiff sued him. The plaintiff won, and the defendant has appealed to this Court

The main ground of appeal has to do with sub-section (1) of s. 16 of the Moneylenders Ordinance No. 42 of 1951. The material part of that sub-section provides -

No contract for the repayment by a borrower .... of money lent to him.... by a moneylender ... after the commencement of this Ordinance ... and no security given by the borrower ... in respect of such contract, shall be enforceable unless a note or memorandum in writing of the contract ... be signed by the parties to the contract ...

The facts as found by the learned president were that the plaintiff was at the material time a licensed moneylender (he admitted it), that he lent money to the defendant on three separate occasions without interest, that on each occasion he took a cheque from the defendant as security, and that on no occasion was a note or memorandum in writing of the contract ever signed by the parties. The learned president nevertheless gave judgment for the plaintiff on the ground that each of the