Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
May 17, 1980
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
In his statement of claim accompanying a specially indorsed writ filed on 31 January 1980, the plaintiff is claiming that the defendants issued a cheque of ¢8,000 to him in payment of goods, namely electric switches, which he supplied to the defendants. He avers that the cheque was dishonoured on presentation and although the defendants have had notice of the dishonour, they have nevertheless neglected to pay. He therefore claims ¢8,000. The defendants entered appearance on 10 March 1980 to the writ and filed a defence on 18 March 1980.
On 21 March 1980, after the said defence had been filed, the plaintiff proceeding under Order 14 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), took out summons for judgment and filed an affidavit in support of his application for final judgment on the ground that the defendants have no defence to the action. The defendants have filed an affidavit in opposition in which they denied that the plaintiff supplied them with goods against the cheque which they had issued. They explained the circumstances leading to the issue of the cheque in paragraph 5 as:
"The defendants issued to the plaintiff the said cheque with the express understanding that the plaintiff was not to present it to his bankers since the defendants explained that they did not have any such amount to his credit with their credit (sic)."
(The emphasis is mine). Probably by the phrase "with their credit," the defendants meant "with their bankers" for this was the meaning which counsel attached to it in his argument. Clearly this explanation would seem to indicate that the plaintiff and the defendants were engaged in a fraudulent intrigue to deceive "somebody from whom the plaintiff was buying certain goods." And apparently the plaintiff has turned round to swindle the defendants. In spite of this defence, counsel has made a passionate appeal to this court to ignore the affidavit in opposition and give final judgment for the plaintiff.
I think courts of law operate in order to dispense justice and where in this case, one party to the proceedings before the court, has sworn to facts showing that an applicant for an order for summary judgment under Order 14 is proposing to utilise the process of the courts to advance his fraudulent intentions, it is my firm view that the court is prima facie in duty bound to take a stand as will frustrate the intended fraud. On this ground alone I will give leave to defend so as to advance the interest
AI Generated Summary
Taylor J. determined an application for summary judgment under Order 14 arising from a commercial dispute over a dishonoured ¢8,000 cheque. The plaintiff, who supplied electric switches to the defendants, sued on a specially indorsed writ claiming payment after the cheque was dishonoured despite notice. The defendants opposed, denying any sale, admitting only custody of switches, and averring that the cheque was issued on an express understanding it would not be presented because they had insufficient funds. They alleged the plaintiff breached that arrangement and sought to use the court’s process to further fraud. Considering authorities on bills of exchange and Order 14 practice, the court found triable issues and refused summary judgment, granting unconditional leave to defend and awarding ¢100 costs.