DR. GIDEON YAO AMENYEDOR VS IDEAL FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Banking and Finance Law
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice George K. Koomson of the High Court granted summary judgment in favor of an investor against a licensed financial institution. The investor placed a premium fixed deposit of GH¢336,182.76 on 24 May 2018, evidenced by Fixed Deposit Certificate No. IFL/FD/270/05/18, set to mature on 23 August 2018 at 25% per annum. At maturity, the institution failed to pay. Although served with the motion on 9 November 2018, the institution filed no affidavit in opposition. Its defence cited liquidity challenges and proposals for rollover and installment payments, but did not dispute liability. Applying Order 14 rule 1 of CI 47 and Supreme Court authorities (SANUNU v SALIFU; SAM JONAH v DUODU-KUMI), the court found no triable issue and ordered payment of GH¢357,136.62 with 25% interest, plus costs of GH¢30,000.
This is an application for Summary Judgement.
I have read the application and the supporting affidavit.
Although the Defendant was served with the motion on the 9th November, 2018, it has failed to file an affidavit in opposition.
I have given regard to the statement of defence filed on the 19th October, 2018. Thoughtful consideration has also been given to Order 14 rule 1 of CI.
47 which provides that: “Where in an action a Defendant has been served with a statement of claim and has filed appearance, the Plaintiff may on notice apply to the Court for judgment against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant has no defence to a claim included in the Writ, or to a particular part of such a claim, or that the Defendant has no defence to such a claim or part of a claim, except as to the amount of any damages claimed. ”A brief summary of the facts in this case is that the Plaintiff undertook a premium fixed deposit on the 24th May 2018 with the Defendant in the sum of GH¢336, 182. 76. This investment was to mature on 23rd August, 2018 at an interest of 25% per annum.
A fixed deposit certificate No. IFL/FD/270/05/18 dated 24th May 2018 was issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.
At the maturity of the said fixed deposit, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff his investment.
The Plaintiff’s efforts to get his investment having failed, the Plaintiff filed a Writ of Summons asking for the following reliefs: “a) An order directed at Defendant to pay to Plaintiff forthwith the sum of GH¢357, 136. 62 being the sums due and payable to Plaintiff from Defendant as a result of Defendant having on 24th May, 2018 received from the Plaintiff the said sum of GH¢336, 182. 76 as fixed deposit investment with promises to pay the said sum of GH¢356, 136. 62 to Plaintiff on the maturity date of 23rd August, 2018 which sum Defendant has failed or refused to pay to Plaintiff.
b) Interest on the said sum of GH¢357, 136. 62 at the prevailing commercial rate of 25% per annum from 23rd August, 2018 to date of final payment and cost on full recovery basis including lawyer’s fees. ”The core issue requiring my adjudication in this application is as to whether or not the Defendant should be allowed to defend the cause? The Supreme Court in the case of SANUNU v SALIFU [2009] SCGLR 586, held that under Order 14 rule 1 of the CI.
47, a trial Judge “must come to the conclusion that on the face of the claim there is no defence to the action.
A defence set up need only sh