GHANA HOME LOANS LIMITED VS KIMATHI MAWUSE DAKE & ANOR
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDHIP JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI J
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2015
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The court dismissed the defendants' application to stay execution and to set aside the amended entry of judgment. The dispute arose due to two certified copies of the court’s ruling indicating different amounts and currencies. The court accepted that a clerical error had been corrected without judicial intervention as it did not alter the substantive judgment. On service issues, the court reasoned that service on the husband should reasonably have informed the wife, given they lived together. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the application and upheld the summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
1 Background The nature of request in this application and the issues it raises for determination incites the age-old dilemma of the invidious choice between legal formalism and legal realism that very often on daily basis engage the courts’ attention in judicial decision making.
In determining the application, it shall be useful in my view to recount brief history of the suit that culminated into this application.
The issues that call for determination, in my view are simple and clear, as the facts largely are not in dispute.
What is in dispute and contested is the application of the law to the facts.
The facts are that on 17 June 2013, this court1 granted plaintiff’s application for summary judgment.
But there are two certified copies of the court’s ruling, essentially the same contents but differing sum awards, a situation that largely has triggered this application.
Per what the applicants (defendant/judgment debtors) claim to be a certified copy of the ruling, the judge concluded her ruling in these terms: …. . I am satisfied that Defendant has no demonstrable defence to Plaintiff’s claim.
The application is granted as prayed.
I enter judgment for Plaintiff for the recovery of the sum of GHc47, 038. 52 being the outstanding balance on the loan facility granted Defendant plus interest on the said sum at the contractual interest rate of 18. 5% from 10th July 2012 to date of final payment. (emphasis mine). 2 But according to plaintiff respondent, upon receipt of copy of the ruling as above, they realized that the court official/typist had mistakenly typed a wrong sum figure, which also is in a currency denomination different from and contrary to the reliefs they prayed, which the court granted.
The said court official/typist, according to respondent corrected the obvious error to reflect what the judge actually recorded in the record book as her ruling that day on their application.
Their version of the ruling of the court, also certified by the registrar is as follows: …. . I am satisfied that Defendant has no demonstrable defence to Plaintiff’s claim.
The application is granted as prayed.
I enter judgment for Plaintiff for the recovery of the sum of $147, 038. 52 being the outstanding balance on the loan facility granted Defendant plus interest on the said sum at the contractual interest rate of 18. 5% from 10th July, 2012 to date of final payment. (emphasis mine). 3 The contents of the two certified rulings essentially are the same except