ABDUL AZIZ _ ANO. v. MOHAMMED SHAMSHUDEEN ARMIYAOU
2004
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- Aryeetey, J.A. [Presiding]
- Akoto-Bamfor, [Mrs.] J.A.
- Asare-Korang, J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2004
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Akoto-Bamfor, J.A., writing for the Court of Appeal, reviewed a High Court summary judgment entered under Order 14 (as amended by L.I. 1129) in favour of a plaintiff who paid the defendant $5,400 to secure a United States visa later found to be fake. The defendant’s pleaded defence set out a $6,000 services package (passport, visa, ticket, hotel and service charges), receipt of $3,414 and ¢500,000, a partial refund, and set-off for legitimate expenses. The Court of Appeal held that these matters raised triable issues inconsistent with awarding the full claim by summary judgment. Although hearing notices were not ordered after adjournment, the defendant appeared and had notice; proceedings in his absence were proper. The appeal was allowed in part, the summary judgment set aside, and leave to defend granted.
JUDGMENT
AKOTO-BAMFOR, J.A.
In this appeal, the appellant who was the defendant in the court below, shall be referred to as the defendant whereas the respondent who was plaintiff therein shall simply be referred to as the plaintiff.
On the 13th of December 2002, the High Court entered judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant upon an application for summary judgment under Order 14 of the High Court Civil Rules as amended by L.I. 1129.
The Court granted all the reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons and statement of claim. It is against this decision that the defendant lodged this appeal in this Court.
In order to appreciate the issues raised, I deem it necessary to set out in brief the events culminating in this appeal.
On the 17th of July 2002, the plaintiff took out a writ of summons claiming against the defendant the sum of $5400 being money the defendant collected from the plaintiffs on the grounds of securing them a United States visa but which he failed to do.
Interest on the said amount from 1st December, 2001 to date of judgment. In the accompanying statement of claim the plaintiff averred that the defendant collected a total amount of $5400 from him in order to secure for him a visa; that when the defendant gave him the passport and he attempted to travel with same, it was detected that the visa was fake. He therefore asked for a refund of the monies paid.
On the 23rd of September, 2002 the defendant filed a defence; the gist of which was that there was an agreement between him and the plaintiffs under which he was to procure a passport, an American visa, a ticket and other charges at a total cost of $6000; the breakdown being $3000 for the visa, $100 for the passport, $1500 for the ticket, hotel and service charges amounting to $1400. In all he received $3414 and ¢500,000. According to him he had refunded an amount of $1,300 to the plaintiff and was therefore not entitled to the sum stated on the face of the writ.
On the 13th of November, 2002 the plaintiff filed an application for summary judgment under order 14 of the High Court Rules as amended by L.I. 1129 for the sum of $5400 together with interest; an affidavit in opposition was filed virtually restating the averments in the decision filed.
On the 13th of December 2002, the learned Judge gave his decision in these terms “Upon hearing learned Counsel and reading the affidavit in support of the motion and reading through the affidavit in opposition the application i