GHANA HOME LOAN LTD v. KIMATHI MAWUSE DAKE & OTHERS
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MARFUL-SAU, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- ACQUAYE, J. A.
- TORKORNOO, J. A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellants were sued over a loan amount and related interest and costs. They counterclaimed on several grounds involving the calculation of interest rates and alleged procedural issues. The trial court granted summary judgment for the respondents, finding no triable issues. The appellants' application to set aside the summary judgment was dismissed, and they appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions, holding that the appellants failed to present a triable defense and that procedural objections raised were either untimely or without merit. The appellate court emphasized the principles governing summary judgment and procedural compliance while dismissing unsubstantiated procedural objections.
J U D G M E N T
TORKORNOO, J. A:
The Appellants were sued for the sum of $147,038.52, interest thereon at the rate of 18.5% per annum from 10th July, 2012 to date of final payment, and costs of the action. Along with a Statement of Defence to the action, they counterclaimed for
a. A declaration that on a proper interpretation of the agreement the interest applied historically by the Plaintiff is wrong.
b. An order for all true proper and necessary account to be taken between the parties on all payments made and received by Plaintiff to ascertain the correct account between the parties.
c. A declaration that the agreement between the parties is still subsisting and valid.
d. A declaration that the suit is caught by the doctrine of lis alibi pendes, is an abuse of process and not maintainable.
The Respondents filed an application for summary judgment which was granted. The judgment can be found on pages 90 and 91 of the Record of Appeal. In her judgment, the learned trial judge cited Sam Jonah v. Duodu –Kumi (2003 – 2004) SC GLR 50 in which the Supreme court held that in an application for summary judgment, a court must critically examine the pleadings and be satisfied that there are no triable issues of fact or of law for which a Defendant should be granted leave to defend. She held that in the case before her, the thrust of the defence mounted by defendant was that the rate of interest stated on the Statement of Claim is not what the parties agreed to. She said that after reading Exhibit YE1, she would uphold the submission by counsel for Applicant (Respondent herein) that the agreed interest rate is as stated in the agreement. Further, she was ‘satisfied that the Defendant has no demonstrable defence to the Plaintiff’s claim’. She entered judgment as prayed on 17th June 2013.
On 10th July 2013, she dismissed an application to set aside the judgment she entered. This ruling can be found on pages 128 and 129 of the Record of Appeal. This appeal was filed against this decision refusing to set aside the summary judgment. Notice of the appeal can be found on pages 130 t0 131 of the ROA. The grounds of appeal are:
a. That the Appellant demonstrated a defence to the Plaintiff’s claim and the learned trial judge erred in law in not setting aside the Summary Judgment dated the 17th of June, 2013.
b. That there is a substantial defect in the Respondents Statement of Claim which is not deserving of a grant of Summary Judgment.
c. Additional grounds to be