ESTAARON VENTURES LIMITED v. PROTEUS LIMITED
March 22, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law
March 22, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice Kweku T. Ackaah‑Boafo ruled on Estaron Ventures application for summary judgment against Proteus Limited arising from a contract to supply iron rods for the University of Education, Winneba Site 2 (GUESS Hotel) project. Estaron sought the outstanding principal of GHS 290,850, accrued interest of GHS 93,072 through April 2018, continuing interest at 4% per month, and costs. Proteus filed a defence attributing non‑payment to the Universitys failure to pay and later alleged unconscionability and compounding interest. The court reviewed Order 14 of C.I. 47 and found the defence a sham, noting Proteuss April 25, 2017 letter acknowledging a total debt of GHS 383,922 and the contractual obligation to pay one month after delivery. It granted summary judgment for reliefs (A)–(C), rejected the 20% costs request under Order 74, and awarded costs of GHS 7,000.
RULING RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[1] This is an application by Plaintiff/Applicant herein praying that summary judgment be entered against the Defendant/Respondent for the reliefs endorsed on the Writ of Summons filed on July 20th, 2018 stated below as:-
a. An order directed at the Defendant to pay the sum of GH¢290,850 being the amount outstanding on the contract for the supply of iron rods to Defendant and due the Plaintiff.
b. The sum of GH¢93,072 being the interest accrued on the amount in paragraph (a) from August 2017 to April 2018.
c. Interest of 4% per month on the sum of GH¢290,850 from May 2018 to date of final payment.
d. Cost, including legal fees to assessed at 20% of the claim.
ii. The case of the Applicant:
[2] The grounds upon which the instant application is premised are catalogued in the original and supplementary affidavits accompanying the motion paper sworn to by Pat Kyei, the Secretary at the Law Firm of the Plaintiff’s Solicitors. The thrust of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s case is that the Plaintiff supplied to the Defendant specified quantity and specification of iron rods for which an amount of GH¢383,922 is still due and unpaid.
[3] It is further deposed that the Defendant’s Statement of Defence filed a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “A” is no defence at all. According to Plaintiff the only reason given by the Defendant is that it has not been able to make payment of the outstanding debt because the University of Education, Winneba with which it has a contract has been unable to pay the Defendant for some works executed by the Defendant.
[4] It is the case of the Applicant that the defence filed “is implausible and therefore no defence at all”. The Applicant has averred that the contract was entered into by the parties on June 19, 2017 and it attached a copy of the contract as Exhibit “B’. According to the Applicant “per clause 12 of the contract, the Defendant was required to pay for the goods one month after the delivery and the payment was not subject to any payment to be made by the University of Education, Winneba”.
[5] It is also the case of the Applicant that per the terms of the contract the Defendant was to issue post-dated cheques for the entire cost of the goods and though the cheques were issued the Defendant pleaded with the Plaintiff not to present same at the Bank when it was due. A copy is attached as Exhibit “C”.
[6] The Plaintiff has further deposed that based on the agreement signed by the p