KOCH KOFI APAARE BETHLEHEM/GOLF CITY, TEMA vs GOLD COAST FUND MANAGEMENT LTD 5 MOZAMIQUE LINK, ACCRA
April 30, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP, JUSTICE JENNIFER A. DADZIE
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Banking and Finance Law
April 30, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The High Court (Commercial Division), per Justice Jennifer Abena Dadzie, considered the Applicants motion for summary judgment to recover GH280,000 and related reliefs from the Respondent. The Applicant relied on a structured finance investment evidenced by Exhibit KA4 issued by the Respondents Tema Branch, showing a one-year treasury bill at 25% interest. After demands, including through counsel (Exhibit KA7 ), went unanswered, the Applicant sued and moved for summary judgment. The Respondents defence raised a TIN omission under Act 915 but consisted largely of bare denials; the writ was amended to include counsels TIN, and the Respondent filed no opposition to the motion. Applying Order 14 of C.I. 47 and Supreme Court precedent, the Court found no triable issue, deemed the defence a sham, and granted summary judgment. The Court ordered recovery of GH280,000, interest at 25% per annum from August 2018 until final payment under C.I. 52, and costs of GH10,000.
At the onset, I would note that earlier in the day, after having heard from counsel for applicant and after reviewing the record, I went ahead and granted the application and reserved the reasons to be delivered later, which I now proceed so to do.
This is an application by Plaintiff/Applicant herein referred to as Applicant praying that summary judgment be entered against the Defendant/Respondent, also referred to hereinafter as Respondent for the reliefs endorsed on the Writ of Summons issued out of the Registry of this court on January 11, 2019 and subsequently amended on February 18, 2019, to wit:
“i. An order for the recovery of the sum of Eighty Thousand Ghana cedis (GH¢80, 000. 00).
ii. Interest on the above-mentioned amount from August 2018 till date of final payment.
iii. Cost including legal fees assessed at 15% of the total amount outstanding”, on the grounds that the Respondent has no defence to the claim endorsed on the amended Writ of Summons and the defence filed by the Respondent is simply bare denials aimed at delaying the Applicant from seeking justice and is a sham.
I have read the application for Summary Judgment, the supporting affidavit and examined the various exhibits put in evidence by the Applicant and the Statement of Defence filed by the Respondent to this suit.
Detailed in the affidavit accompanying the motion paper are the facts, which, according to the Applicant gave rise to the instant application.
It is the claim of the Applicant that he entered into a structured finance agreement with the Respondent on August 13, 2008 for an amount of eighty thousand Ghana cedis (GH¢80, 000. 00)at the guaranteed interest rate of twenty-five per centum (25%) per annum which interest was to be paid quarterly.
The Applicant provided the Court with proof of this investment attached to his affidavit in support of the application as Exhibit “KA4”. According to the Applicant, when he made a demand on the Respondent to redeem his investment, the Respondent failed to refund same to him.
The Applicant asserts that the Respondent continued to ignore his demands including the written demand on the Respondent which he subsequently caused his lawyers to make on the Respondent on his behalf, marked herein as Exhibit “KA7”. According to the Applicant, the refusal of the Respondent to refund his money is what led to his issuing the writ of summons for the reliefs endorsed thereon as earlier stated.
The record of proceedings reflects that upon the