BENJAMIN NTI v. UTRAK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

Before me is an application for an order of the court to enter summary judgment against the Defendant on the ground that the statement of defense discloses no defence to the action. The application is premised on Order 14 rule 1 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004 (CI 47).

On 24th January, 2019, the Plaintiff/Applicant (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) filed a writ of summons against the Defendant/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) for:

a. A declaration that the Defendant has breached the investment management agreements dated 1st June, 2018 and 12th June, 2018 bearing Reference numbers UCML/BN/06-18/4492 and UCML/BN/06-18/4897.

b. An order compelling the payment of the sum of One Hundred and Twelve Thousand Six Hundred and Twelve Ghana Cedis, fifty pesewas (GHC112,612.50) by the Defendant to the Plaintiff being the principal sum of One Hundred and Five Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC105,000.00) invested by the Plaintiff with the Defendant and interest payable thereon under the investment management agreement afore-mentioned.

c. Interest on the said sum of One Hundred and Twelve Thousand Six Hundred and Twelve Ghana Cedis, Fifty pesewas (GHC112,612.50) at the prevailing commercial bank lending rate from 1st September, 2018 till date of final payment.

d. An order for the payment of the sum of Seventy-five thousand two hundred and fifty Ghana cedis (GHC75,250.00) being the principal sum of Seventy Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC70,000.00) invested by the Plaintiff with Defendant and the interest payable thereon under the investment management agreement afore-mentioned.

e. Interest on the said sum of Seventy-Five Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Ghana Cedis (GHC75,250.00) at the prevailing commercial bank lending rate from 12th September, 2018 till date of final payment.

f. Damages for breach of the investment management agreement entered into by the parties afore-mentioned.

g. Costs including legal fees.

According to the applicant, the defence filed on behalf of the defendant does not reveal any defence to the claim and for that matter no useful purpose will be served by going into a full trial of the matter.

Counsel for the Applicant referred to the defendant statement of defence and denied that the applicant instructed the respondent to roll over his investment upon maturity. She referred to the investment agreements (i.e. Exhibits BN4 and BN5) and submitted that the agreements do not capture such terms. Counse