ADJEWOCO LIMITED v. GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK

JUDGMENT OF KORANTENG-ADDOW J.

This is a claim brought on a specially indorsed writ for the sum of ¢43,455.53 plus interest at the current bank rate calculated from 13 May 1980 until "date of final payment." The writ was served on the defendants and they entered appearance through their solicitor. On 9 October 1980, the plaintiffs took out a summons for judgment under Order 14, r. 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (LN 140A). The summons was supported by an affidavit sworn to by the senior law clerk in the employment of the plaintiffs, and who deposed in the supporting affidavit that he was authorised to swear to the facts stated therein. He further deposed that in his belief the defendants have no defence to the action. He verified the facts upon which the claim is based by reference to the writ of summons and statement of claim. By the writ of summons, the plaintiffs' claim is:

". . . for the sum of ¢43,455.53 being principal and interest as at the close of business on 13 May 1980, representing the balance of bank facilities granted to the defendants at their own request as per the attached certified copy of the statement of account which balance is still due and owing despite repeated demands for due settlement."

In paragraph 3 of the statement of claim, the plaintiffs averred:

"As a result of the said approach by the defendants, the plaintiffs acceded to the request of the defendants and granted them banking facilities in the normal course of business and on the bank's usual terms attaching to the granting of such facilities."

In paragraph 4 it is pleaded that as at 13 May 1980, the defendants were indebted to them in the said sum "which they had failed to repay in violation of the terms upon which the facilities were granted and despite repeated demands and requests."

The defendants did not file any defence to the action nor did they file an affidavit in opposition to the summons. They opposed the [p.849] summons on legal grounds. Mr. Tsikata submitted that the application is not properly before the court because the supporting affidavit was sworn to by a legal clerk who does not disclose his source of information. He contends that neither the statement of claim nor the affidavit gives the basis of the debt nor the terms which the defendants have violated. Relying on Accra Furniture and Rubber Foam Co., Ltd. v. Indart S.P./A of Rome [1973] 2 G.L.R. 289 and Wilson v. Smith [1980] G.L.R. 152, C.A. he submitted that summary jud