GHANA EDUCATION TRUST FUND Vs SIC FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD

I have listened to the sumissions for and agiant the motion filed on 18th May, 2023 for leave to enter Summary Judgment in favour of the Plaintiff/Applicant (hereinafter called the Applicant) against the Defendant/Respondent (hereinafter called the Respondent). I have gone through the docuemnts filed in support and in opposition to the application.

The purpose of summary judgment under Order 14 of C. I. 47 is to allow a plaintiff to obtain judgment summarily without necessarily going through trial in a situation where the Defendant is not able to set up any bonafide defence.

Generally, in summary judgment, the Plaintiff’s claim should be clear on the face of it.

The Defendant should have been served with the Plaintiff’s writ, entered appearance and filed a defence.

Also, the Plaintiff claim should be clear and unimpeachable.

See: YARTEL BOAT BUILDING CO V. ANNAN [1991] 2 GLR 11 ATLANTA TIMBER CO V. VICTORIA TIMBER CO.

LTD [1962] 1 GLR 221 SANUNU V SALIFU [2009] SCGLR 586 Therefore, in a situation where the Defendant is not able to set up a good defence or any defence at all, then the Court may grant summary judgment.

The trial court will come to this conclusion by examining the Respondent or the Defendant defence or pleadings to determine whether there are triable issues for determination or not.

See: BALLAST NEDAM GHANA BV.

v HORIZON MARINE CONSTRUCTION LTD[2010] SCGLR 435 SADHWANI v AL-HASSAN [1999-2000] 1GLR 19 CA DUNCAN v KAWOACO LTD [1981] GLR 476 Consequently, a court will not grant summary judgment if the Defendant defence discloses triable issues.

See: YIRENKYI v TORMEKPEY [1987-88] 1 GLR 533 CA MUSTAPHA V NATIONAL INVESTMENT BANK LTD [2005-2006] SCGLR 1037 However, what will amount to triable issue(s) will depend on the pleadings and the circumstances of each case.

The law is settled, that summary judgment is a judgment on the merits even though it is obtained by a formal motion without a plenary trial.

It is a judgment granted on a simple ground that the Respondent to the application has no defence to the action or part thereof or any reasonable defence to be allowed to contest the case on the merits to waste time and expense.

See: ASAMOAH v MARFO [2011] 2 SCGLR 832 REPUBLIC v HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), ACCRA EX PARTE PORT HANDLING CO.

LTD [2014] 69 GMJ 1 SC In the case of AXES CO.

LTD v OPOKU [2013] 53 GMJ 57, the Supreme Court held that“The judge before whom an application is made is entitled under ru