(1983)1983 May 3 [A LOI/.OU, DfcMlTRIADFS, LOR1S, JJ ] AHMED K \ W A L NASER EL DIN, AppiHunt-Defendant FEREOS LTD.. Respondents-Plaint iJJ\. (Civil Appeal No. 6460) ompany Law—Sate oj goods—Person with whom sellers had transactions claiming to have taken delivery of the goods not in his persona! capacity but in his capacity as director of a company— Existence of company not disclosed to sellers—Finding of trial Court that transaction took place between seller and such person in his personal capacity sustained. iiiewst—Claim for balance due for goods sold and delivered— Whether interest could be claimed from date of each invoice. The respondents sued the appellant for the sum of C£334.625 mils balance due for goods sold and delivered. The appellant by his defence alleged that he never himself purchased and took delivery of the goods from the respondents in his personal capacity but any dealings between the respondents and the appellant were made in the capacity of the latter as a director of the "Fedula imports and Exports Co. Ltd.", a company registered in Cyprus. The relevant invoices for the supply of the goods in question were issued under various names but nowhere in these invoices the exact name of the above company was mentioned. The trial Court rejected the above defence and gave judgment against the appellants for the amount claimed plus 9% interest from the date of each invoice. Hence this appeal. Held, that since nowhere in the invoices the exact name of the company is mentioned it would have been contrary to any 298 1 ( -Ι ·!ΐ. 5 Niispr Π Din \. t'criOs l.l.l. A. l.oizou.1. notion of coinpuny law if the DialJudge hadfound that the '.umactions in question took place between die respondents and t:ic said company whose existence does not appear ΓΓΟΠΙ the evidence to have ever been disclosed to ti:e respondents. accordingly il.c judgment of the trial Judge will be upheld but me appeal will be allowed partly by cancelling that p-rt of the iudgniciu thai adjudges the appellant to pay f)\ imcievt onih,· •»aid invoices because inleiesi could not be claimed. App< til pitrtl) allowed. iO Appeal. Ί5 Appeal by defendant against the judgment of the District Court of Nicosia (Stavriuides, O.J.) dated the 3ist May, 1982 (Action No. 1050/81) whereby he was adjudged to pay to plainlifT the sum of (."'£344.625 mils balance for goods sold and delivered. C. CcmielUk's, for the appellant. C. Emilianides. for the respondent. 20 25 A. LOIZDII J. gave the following judgment of the Court. The respondents, a commercial company registered under the law with limited liability, filed an action against the appellant lor the sum of C£344.625 mils balance due for goods sold and delivered. The appellant, by his defence, alleged that he never himself purchased and took delivery from the respondents these goods in his personal capacity, "but any dealings between the plain tiffs and thedefendant were made inthecapacity of the appellant as a Director of the Fedula Imports and Exports Co. Ltd.", a company registered in Cyprus under the relevant lawn. The trial Judge, after hearing the evidence adduced by both 30 sides, dismissed this defeace and found that the defendant-now appellant -had personally contracted with the plaintiffs and that he was liable to pay the balance for the goods supplied to him by the plaintiffs, plus 9% interest from the date of each invoice. With regard to this interest, adjudged to be paid, counsel for the 35 respondents has conceded that it could not be claimed and the judgment appealed from could be modified accordingly. 299 Λ. I.nizou J. Naser El Din v. Fereos Ltd. (IV83) Counsel for theappellant has maintained that thetrial Judge wrongly decided the case as being one of credibility inasmuch as the invoices which wereproduced by the respondents-plaintiffs were issued invarious names, some as Ahmed Fedula, some as Ahmed Fedula Co.,.some as Kawal El Din Ahmed, one as El Fedula andone, characteristically, as Kawal Ahmed Fedula. We said "characteristically" as none is in the name of Fedula imports & Exports 'Ltd., andthename "Fedula" andtheother names used wereclearly indicativeof theidentityofthe purchaser, a foreigner in Cyprus, rather than as accurate description of the legal or physical person with which the respondents were dealing and to whom they were supplying their goods on credit. We uphold on this point thejudgment of the learned trial Judge and his findings and conclusions that the appellant was purchasing the goods in his personal capacity and not as a Director of the aforesaid registered company. In fact, as already seen, nowhere in these invoices, to which theattention of this Court hasbeendrawn by learned counsel for the appellant and which formed thefoundation upon which hehas based his agreements, theexact nameof the said company, that is,Fedula Imports & Exports Co. Ltd.,is mentioned and it would have been contrary toany notionof company law if the learned trial Judge had found that the transactions in question took place between the respondent company andthe said company whose existence does not appear from theevidence to have ever been disclosed to the respondents. We uphold, therefore, the judgment of the learned trial Judge but the appeal is allowed partly by cancelling that part of the judgment that adjudges theappellant to pay 9% interest on thesaid invoices. Theappeal, therefore, is dismissed partly and partly allowed asabove. Inthecircumstances,the appellant to pay two thirds of the costs of this appeal. Appealpartly allowed. Orderfor costs asabove. 300