FRANK AYITEY v. JULIANA QUAYE
2004
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ESSILFIE BONDZIE JA (PRESIDING)
- OWUSU-ANSAH J.A
- OSEI JA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2004
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Juliana Quaye, a prophetess in Darkuman, was sued by a trader who claimed to have paid her USD $3,000 for transmission to visa contractor Kwabena Ofori to secure a United States visa, seeking money had and received, interest, and costs. Proceeding under Order 14, the High Court granted summary judgment, terming the defence frivolous. On appeal, OSEI JA held that the defendant’s affidavit raised triable issues: whether Quaye was the contracting party responsible for the funds or merely a custodian for Ofori, and whether interest should run from a single date given three instalments. Citing Jacob v Booth’s Distillery, Sheppards & Co v Wilkinson & Jarvis, and J.G. Sarkies v Timber & Co, the Court of Appeal emphasized that summary jurisdiction must be used with care and that defendants should not be shut out where a defence may exist. The appeal was allowed and the case remitted for trial.
Plaintiff\Respondent (hereinafter referred to simply as Plaintiff) by a writ of summons specially endorsed with, and accompanied by a statement of claim, commenced an action against Defendant\Appellant (hereinafter referred to simply as Defendant). Respondent then as Plaintiff chose to proceed under Order 14 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) rule and consequently took the relevant steps.
His statement of claim read as follows
1. The Plaintiff is, and was, at all material times, a trader and lives at Darkuman, Accra and Defendant is and was at all material times a priest and lives at Darkuman, Accra
2. The Plaintiff states that on or about the 3rd of May 1998, the Defendant introduced one Kwabena Ofori to him as a Visa Contractor who had obtained a visa for her(Defendant’s) brother and which she showed the visa and the passport to the Plaintiff’s parent.
3. The Plaintiff states that by an oral agreement made on 3rd May, 1998, the Plaintiff $3, 000.
00 to the defendant for onward transmission to the said Kwabena Ofori the visa contractor.
00 to be given to the said visa contractor for the purchase and an air ticket but the plaintiff refused to give more money to the Defendant because he had not seen the visa.
5. The Plaintiff states that the Defendant could not procure the visa for him so he demanded a refund of his $3, 000.
6. The Plaintiff avers that the Defendant’s refusal to pay the debt is causing the Plaintiff financial difficulty and embarrassment.
7 By reason of the foregoing matters, the Plaintiff has suffered loss and damage.
8. The Plaintiff therefore claims the reliefs endorsed on his writ of summons the The reliefs endorsed on his writ of summons and referred to in the statement of claim are as follows:
“(a) cash the sum of $3, 000.00 being money had and received by the Defendant for the purposes of procuring a visa for the Plaintiff.
b) Interest on the said sum from the 3rd day of May 1998 to date of final Payment.
c) Costs. ”The records show that Plaintiff’s writ of summons together with his statement of claim as set out above were served on the defendant on 1st August 2001 to which defendant entered appearance per Counsel on 8th August 2001.
After satisfying himself of that fact by an official search conducted on 14\8\01, plaintiff applied by summons and a supporting affidavit under Order 14 r. 1. of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rule, 1954 for summary judgement. . Since the supporting affidavit is very crucial, I