Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
ASIAMAH, JA:
This is an interlocutory appeal brought by the Plaintiff/Appellant against the ruling of the trial High Court to the effect that this is not a proper case where the Plaintiff/Appellant Civil Motion can secure summary judgment under Sections 1 and 2 of Order 14 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (LN 140A) as amended by LI 1129.
To obtain judgment under this Order the applicant is required as of jural necessity and prerequisite to state the following facts in his summons:—
(1) The reliefs sought by him;
(2) An affidavit verifying the facts on which his claim or part of it is based; and that
(3) In his relief the default has no defence to his claim or part thereof.
The appellant had no difficulty in stating the relief under (1) & (3) above. He is seeking the recovery of US $10,000 being as he stated in both the indorsement to his writ and summons for summary judgment "long outstanding overseas per diem allowance due from Defendant to plaintiff during his employment with the Defendant", and that the defendant has no defence to the action.
It is not enough to state that a party has no defence to an action. The applicant must go a little further to provide more facts why in his belief he thinks there is no defence to the action. It is precisely for this purpose that the law requires an applicant to state in his supporting affidavit "facts on which the relevant claim or part of a claim is based", see Order 14 Rule 2(1). I believe the eventual purpose of Order 14 Rule 2(1) is, inter alia, to let the defendant and the court know when the right of action accrued and whether or not the law on limitation of action in the matters has not been breached. By failing to state when the appellant ceased to be in the respondent's employ, your Lordships are being, as it were, pushed into a speculative position to conjecture. The dispensation of justice in a court of law does not concern itself with speculation. An issue emerges here which can only be resolved by evidence at a trial.
I hasten to mention that the appellant had in December, 1997 instituted this same action against the Respondent herein claiming the same sum of money in suit No. C.753/97. Summons for directions was taken by the trial High Court on 29"' January, 1998. And subsequent to this the plaintiff on 12th October, 1999 filed a "notice of withdrawal" and stated in the said notice of withdrawal thus:—
"... the plaintiff herein hereby wholly withdraws his claim in th