ELSIE OBENG-KWAKYE VS KHAREEMA SANDRA AGUIAR
March 4, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE NICHOLAS M. C. ABODAKPI (J)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
March 4, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
His Lordship Justice Nicholas M. C. Abodakpi of the Ghana High Court granted a summary judgment motion filed by Elsie Obeng-Kwakye to recover debts from Khareema Aguiar. The Plaintiff served the writ and application; the Defendant filed a notice of appearance but did not oppose the motion and sought an adjournment by letter, which the Court refused. The Court reviewed Exhibit B, a signed handwritten ledger of transactions, and correspondence (Exhibits C1 and D) showing explicit admissions of indebtedness and promises to pay. Finding no challenge to the quantum and no particulars supporting a purported business venture, the Court concluded there was no defence and no triable issue. Proceeding under Order 14 and Order 36 Rule 1(2), the Court entered judgment for GH31,206.00, US$3,100.00, and a3450.00, ordered interest (including rates tied to the U.S. Federal Reserve Board and U.K. Exchequer), and awarded costs of GH2,000.00.
On 28/01/2019, a motion on notice to sign summary judgment under ORDER 14 of C. I. 47/04 was filed by the Plaintiff herein. The reliefs sought are as follows:
Recovery of the sums of GH¢31,206.00, US$3,100.00, and £450.00 from the Defendant by the Plaintiff/Applicant.
Interest on the various sums stated above at the going commercial bank lending rate from October 2016 till the date of final payment.
Cost including solicitors' fees.
The writ and statement of claim in the action have been duly served. The Defendant has filed a Notice of Appearance which is on the record. On 26/02/2019, the application under consideration was served on the lawyer for the Defendant.
But as of today, 04/03/2019, no process has been filed in opposition. Instead, a letter has been written requesting an adjournment. In effect, Counsel failed to show up, and the Defendant also failed to attend the hearing. The request for adjournment is unreasonable and has therefore not been granted.
This Court, placing reliance on ORDER 36 Rule 1(2) of C. I. 47/04, will proceed. The Defendant/Respondent has notice of the pendency of the motion but failed to do the needful.
Order 14 Rule 1 of C. I. 47/04 on summary judgment provides: “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.”
In Rule 3, it is provided that the application shall be served on the defendant for a period of not less than four (4) days before the day fixed for the hearing of the application. The procedural requirements on when and how the application must be made and heard have been complied with.
The defence has filed a Notice of Appearance. And on 26/02/2019, the application was duly served on the Defendant. Indeed, the Respondent has been given not less than six (6) days of notice about the pendency of the application. This Court, therefore, is seized with jurisdiction to hear the application.
The deposition in support is to the effect that the Applicant has given various sums of money to the Respondent, and the latter’s indebtedness is as shown by EXHIBIT ‘B’. This Court has examined the Exhibit. It is a handwritten record of various sums