AURUM GLOBAL PARTNERS LTD VS RHEMA MINNING LTD

Plaintiff/Applicant (now referred to as Plaintiff) mounted this action against the Defendant/Respondent (now referred to as Defendant). On 25th October, 2023 claiming the reliefs endorsed on the Writ of Summons as;

(a) An order for the payment of one hundred and fifty thousand Euros (€150, 000) by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

b) Interest on the €150, 000 at the prevailing commercial bank rate on the said amount owing and due until date of final payment.

c) Cost including legal fees.

When personal service on the Defendant failed, the Plaintiff applied for substituted service which was granted on 12th December, 2023. The Defendant subsequently entered appearance and filed its Defence on 28th February, 2024. The Plaintiff is now seeking an order of this court to sign Summary Judgment against the Defendant.

In the supporting affidavit sworn to on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff gave the facts that gave rise to the suit.

The Plaintiff’s case as disposed to in the affidavit in support that the parties entered into an agreement in which the Plaintiff invested an amount of €150, 000 into Defendant’s mining project at Dadwen in the Western Region of Ghana. (Exhibit Val). The agreement provided that the Plaintiff would be the sale off taker of the gold produced by the Defendant at 200% discount.

The Plaintiff in pursuant to the agreement made a payment of €150, 000 to Defendant on 16th February, 2023 (Exhibit VG2) but the Defendant has failed to supply Plaintiff with gold from its mines.

Upon a visit to the mining site of the Defendant, the Plaintiff realized that work had not even started on the site contrary to the agreement.

That by a letter dated 5th December, 2022, the Defendant’s indebtedness to Plaintiff and proposed a payment schedule to retire the debt (Exhibit Va3). In eleven instatements commencing from 28th February, 2023 to 31st December, 2023. That the Defendant failed to go by its own proposed payment schedule and wrote again through its lawyers proposing a new payment schedule(Exhibit VAH) which was to pay the 1st installment on 30th July, 2023 instead of 28th February, 2023. The Defendant once again defaulted to make the first payment on 30th July, 2023 and as of September, 2023, the Defendant had not paid even the first installment to retire the debt to Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff therefore instructed its lawyers to write a demand letter to the Defendant(Exhibit VG5). In spite of the demand notice of the Plaintiff to Defendant, the