ABii NATIONAL SAVINGS & LOANS LTD VS ZAP ENERGY GHANA LIMITED & ORS
November 11, 2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU, J.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Banking and Finance Law
November 11, 2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
The instant application seeks an order of the court to enter final judgment in default of appearance for the reliefs indorsed on the writ of summons against the defendants in favour of the plaintiff.
The application is brought ex parte.
By its writ of summons the plaintiff claims against the defendants: a. An Order for the payment of the sum of GH¢358, 160. 09 being balance due and owing as at 2nd May, 2016 on account of credit facility granted to 1st Defendant Company by Plaintiff on 4th September 2014, the repayment of which was secured by assignment to Plaintiff of 1st Defendant’s receivables of GH¢1, 011, 600 from Nestle Ghana limited and joint several guarantees executed by 2nd and 3rd Defendants but payment of which Defendants have failed to make good, several demand notices notwithstanding.
b. Interest of 6% per month on the sum of GH¢358, 160. 09 and all unsatisfied payments respectively calculated at the end of each day and payable at the close of each month from 2nd May, 2016 up to and until the date of final payment.
c. Costs including legal fees.
According to the plaintiff, despite the fact that the defendants have been served with the writ and statement of claim issued by the plaintiff, the defendants have failed to enter appearance as required by the Rules of court; hence, the present application.
The application is brought under Order 10 rule 1 of the High Court(Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, CI 47 which provides that 1. Claim for liquidated demand(1) Where the plaintiff’s claim against a defendant is for a liquidated demand only, and the defendant fails to file appearance, the plaintiff may, after the time limited for appearance, apply to enter final judgment against the defendant for a sum not exceeding that claimed by the writ and for costs, and proceed with the action against other defendants, if any.
The plaintiff has averred at paragraphs 10 and 11 of its statement of claim that: 10. Plaintiff says that 1st Defendant assigned to it all receivables amounting to GH¢1, 011, 600 from Nestle Ghana Limited, and independent guarantee from
AI Generated Summary
The High Court (per Justice Samuel K. A. Asiedu) considered an ex parte application by a lender seeking final judgment in default of appearance for sums arising from a credit facility extended to the 1st Defendant company. The facility, granted on 4 September 2014, was secured by an assignment of receivables of GH¢1,011,600 from Nestlé Ghana Limited and by joint and several guarantees executed by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants; the lender claimed an outstanding balance of GH¢358,160.09 plus 6% monthly interest and costs as at 2 May 2016. Although the writ and statement of claim were served, the defendants did not enter appearance. The court held the loan was secured by a charge, putting the case under Order 59’s mortgage action regime, not Order 10 rule 1’s liquidated demand path. Under Order 59 rule 5, default judgment requires leave and notice to the defendants. The failure to notify breached audi alteram partem and went to jurisdiction; Order 81 could not cure this. Citing Ex parte PPE and Ex parte Allgate, the court dismissed the application.