JUDGMENT OF AMPIAH J.A.
This is an appeal against the decision of the High Court, Ho dated 4 December 1987. On 30 September 1987 the plaintiff-company took out a writ of summons against the defendant for,
"(1). . . the immediate payment of the sum of ¢652,000 being balance of the purchase price of 297 bags of granulated white sugar purchased by the defendant. Interest on the said sum at the rate of 26 per cent from 24 April 1987 up to the date of judgment."
This writ which was accompanied with a statement of claim was served on the defendant on 1 October 1987. A search made on 27 November 1987 at the court's registry revealed that no defence had been filed as at that date. On the same date the plaintiff-company applied by motion on notice for summary judgment. The return date was fixed at 4 December 1987. On that date the plaintiff-company moved the court for judgment. The bailiff's certificate of services showed that the defendant was served with the motion for judgment on 1 December 1987. No affidavit in opposition was filed and, up to that date no statement of defence had been filed. The court accordingly gave judgment for the plaintiff-company for the sum of ¢434,300 with costs of ¢30,000. It also ordered that the defendant pay interest at the bank rate on the judgment debt from 24 April 1987 to the date of judgment. The defendant has appealed against that judgment.
It should be stated that up to the time of hearing the appeal, the defendant herein had not filed any defence to the plaintiff’s claim. The defendant has filed many grounds of appeal but, I think, the [p.280] gravamen of his complaint is that, "the court erred in granting an application which was improperly before the court." The other matters raised in the other grounds of appeal, I think, are matters which the defendant should have raised in the court below if she had filed a statement of defence or an affidavit in opposition to the application for summary judgment.
The defendant relied on rule 2 (3) of Order 14 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A) as amended by the High Court (Civil Procedure) (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules, 1977 (L.I. 1129).
It is the contention of counsel for the defendant that since the plaintiff chose to come under Order 14 of L.N. 140A, she was under a duty to comply with the provision of that Order strictly. He said further that under rule 2 of Order 14 as amended, the defendant was entitled to four clear days, notice of the application fo
