GUARANTY TRUST BANK (GH) LIMITED vs SELECT REALTY (GH) LTD & ORS
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU, J.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Corporate Law
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff sought to recover debts from the defendants, who failed to appear in court despite multiple notices. The court allowed the plaintiff to prove its claim, and judgments were entered against the 1st and 2nd defendants for their respective outstanding debts with interest. The 3rd defendant was struck out from the suit as he was improperly included. The court referred to various legal principles including the avoidance of delays in hearings, the power to proceed without a party, proper parties in a suit, and the concept of misjoinder and non-joinder of parties.
By a writ of summons issued on the 28th day of August, 2013 the Plaintiff claims against the defendants: Recovery of the sum of GH¢13, 334. 75 being the total indebtedness of the Defendants to the Plaintiff as at July 31, 2013. Interest on the said sum at 35% per annum till date of final payment. Costs including solicitors fees on a full indemnity basis. Further relief as the Court may deem fit.
After the service of the writ with its accompanying statement of claim on the defendants, an Appearance was filed and later a Statement of Defence.
When the parties could not settle the matter at pre-trial, the case was set down for hearing.
Thereafter, several hearing notices were served on the defendants through their solicitor the last one being served on the 16th day of December, 2015 by which the Defendants were notified to appear in court in order for the suit to be heard.
Despite the service of hearing notices the defendants failed to appear on the 18th day of December, 2015 and not even their lawyer had the courtesy to appear in court on the hearing date.
The court has a duty to avoid delay in the hearing of cases as stated in Order 37 rule 2 of the High Court Rules of Civil Procedure that “It is the duty of the parties, their lawyers and the Court to avoid all unnecessary adjournments and other delays, and to ensure that causes or matters are disposed of as speedily as the justice of the case permits”Therefore where a party was served with a hearing notice informing him of the date fixed for hearing and inviting him to put in appearance for the prosecution or the defence of a case, and the party fails to avail himself of the opportunity given him, the court has the power to proceed with the hearing of the case in the absence of the party.
See Republic v. Judicial Committee of the Ahanta Traditional Council; Ex parte Bosomakora II [1982-83] GLR 231 Order 36 rule 2(a) is also clear on this issue.
It states that“(2) Where an action is called for trial and a party fails to attend, the trial Judge may(a)where the plaintiff attends and the defendant fails to attend, dismiss the counterclaim, if any, and allow the plaintiff to prove the claim”The court therefore invited the Plaintiff to prove its claim wherefore the Plaintiff’s representative gave evidence after which the Plaintiff announced the closure of its case.
From the evidence on record the court finds that the 1st and the 2nd defendants are all customers of the Plaintiff bank.
The court