GHANA HOME LOANS LTD VS PHILIP ACQUAH & ANOR.
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE JANAPARE A. BARTELS-KODWO (MRS.)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Banking and Finance Law
- Contract Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this High Court application for summary judgment under Order 14 rule 1 of C. I. 47, Her Ladyship Justice Janapare A. Bartels-Kodwo considered a debt claim arising from a US$100,000 mortgaged facility approved to the defendants. The plaintiff relied on a facility letter (Exhibit AA1), a mortgage agreement (Exhibit AA2), and a mortgage statement (Exhibit AA3) showing indebtedness as at January 2018, praying for judgment for US$96,713.84 with contractual interest at 22.50% per annum from 3 May 2017 and costs. The defendants’ defence asserted that no demand notice was served and the action was premature, and their affidavit vaguely claimed triable issues without particulars. Applying Order 14 rules 1 and 3(1) and the cited authorities, the court held these were bare denials that disclosed no reasonable defence or triable issue, and entered final judgment for the plaintiff including the claimed sum, interest, and GH 10,000 costs.
This is an application for summary judgment under order 14 rule 1 of C. I. 47. The Plaintiff prays this court to enter same against the Defendants on the sum of USD 96, 713. 84 being their total outstanding indebtedness to the Plaintiff with interest on the said sum from 3rd May, 2017 to date of final payment at the agreed interest rate of 22. 50% per annum with costs.
Plaintiff submits that at the request of the Defendants it approved a mortgaged facility of $100, 000. 00 to the Defendants.
This is supported by the Exhibits AA1 and AA2 which represent the facility letter and the Mortgage Agreement.
They have since failed to service their debts and Exhibit AA3 is their mortgage statement showing their indebtedness as at January 2018. Learned Counsel for the Applicant relied on the case of ATLANTA TIMBER V VICTORIA TIMBER 1992 1 GLR @ 221 where the principle is enunciated that even though a defence may have been filed in a matter where the Plaintiff can clearly demonstrate that the defendant has no defence summary judgment can be taken.
It was likewise also held in the cases of SANUNU V SALIFU 2009 SCGLR @ 586 and SAM JONAH V KUMI DODOO 2003/04 1 SCGLR @ 50. Plaintiff contends that the statement of defence and the affidavit to this application are bare denials to the Writ or the sum owed.
Learned counsel submitted the Defendants have failed to raise any triable issues, She also referred to the case of RE GENERAL RAIL SYNDICATE 1900 1 CH 365 also known as THE WHITELEY’S CASE where the same principle is illustrated.
Learned counsel submits that in the absence of any triable issue a bare denial by the Defendant’s that they owe the sums in question should not avail them a full trial therefore the Applicant’s prayer for final judgment should be granted.
The Defendants relied on the processes filed in the matter.
I have looked at the Defence filed.
All that they state is that they were not served with a demand notice therefore the action is premature.
This I am of the view is no defence.
In the affidavit in opposition the 1st Defendant deponent states that there are triable issues however he fails to tell this court what those are.
I find that the Defendant has failed to disclose a valid prima facie defence.
The defence discloses no reasonable defence to the claim and this I am of the view entitles the Plaintiff to final judgment as envisaged under the rules under which this application is brought where it is provided under order 14 rule (1) of CI 47