GH - GHANA HOME LOANS LTD VS ROBERT AHOMKA-LINDSAY

This is an application for Summary Judgment under Order 14 rule 1 of C. I. 47, The High Court and Civil Procedure Rules 2004. The Plaintiff filed an application to have this court to enter same against the Defendant’s on the sum of USD 405, 914. 10 being their total outstanding on the facilities granted the Defendant with interest on the sum of USD $142, 335. 84 from 12th November, 2014 to date of final payment at the agreed interest rate of 22. 50% per annum and on the sum of USD $263, 578. 26 from 12th January, 2015 to date of final payment at the agreed interest rate of 19. 65% per annum.

The Defendant filed an application to set aside the application on the basis that same is misconceived in law and procedure and not based on known legal principles especially at this stage of the case.

He also seeks to set it aside based on the grounds that issues have been set down for trial which meant that the parties have joined issues and evidence is require to prove them so summary judgment cannot be taken.

Learned Counsel for the Applicant relied on the case of OYOKO CONTRACTORS LTD V STARCOM BROADCASTING 1GLR 2003-2004 where the court per Quaye J A said………and argued that due to the fact that pleadings had closed and there are triable issues the application was improper.

Moreover the parties had been ordered by the court to file their Witness Statements.

So in her view the application was a shade late in the day.

Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant in the substantive application is opposed to this application opposing their motion for Summary Judgment.

She submitted that under the Commercial Court rules an application for Summary Judgment can be brought after pre-trial is concluded.

The fact that issues have been forwarded to a trial court does not prevent them from bringing such an application.

She relied on the cases of SANUNU V SALIFU 2009 SCGLR @586 and SAM JONAH V KUMI DODOO 2003/04 1 SCGLR @ 50 in which the Apex Court of the land was clear as to when an application for Summary Judgment could be brought.

The instant scenario she submitted falls in that category.

In her view, the two issues set down for trial at the pre-trial stage are not triable issues because the issue whether or not the Defendant is indebted to the Plaintiff can be disposed of summarily.

This she submitted is supported by practice as found in the Supreme Court Practise 1991 Vol.

1@ 146. Therefore the bare denial by the Defendant that it does not owe without any bona