MABANI SEVEN COMPANY LIMITED vs STAR ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & 4 ORS.
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE GEORGE K. KOOMSON
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case revolves around a dispute over the enforcement of advance payment bonds issued by the Defendants for the benefit of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff sought Summary Judgment under Order 14 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules 2004 (C. I. 47) due to the Defendants' failure to honor their payment obligations under the bonds. The Defendants raised issues of fraud and other defenses, but the court found these irrelevant to their obligation under the bond. The court emphasized the autonomous nature of the bond contracts, meaning disputes between the principal (MSF) and the beneficiary (Plaintiff) do not affect the guarantor's obligations. Ultimately, Summary Judgment was granted in favor of the Plaintiff, requiring the Defendants to pay the amounts stated in the bonds.
In this application, the Plaintiff/Applicant (hereinafter called the Plaintiff) prays the Court to enter Summary Judgment under Order 14 of the (High Court Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 (C. I. 47) against the Defendants/Respondents (hereinafter called the Defendants). A brief summary of the facts given rise to this case is that, on the 23rd September, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with a company called MSF ENGENHARIA SA (MSF) for the construction of the Plaintiff’s project in Accra.
The Defendants on the 29th September, 2015 also executed an advance payment bond with the MSF for the benefit of Plaintiff.
I shall make references to these bonds in the course of the ruling.
In the course of time, the Plaintiff made a demand for the payment of the bond on the Defendants.
The inability of the Defendants to pay the Plaintiff has brought the parties to Court.
The core issue requiring my adjudication in this application is as to whether or not the Defendants should be allowed to defend the cause.
I have read the application and the various affidavits filed by the parties in this matter.
I have also read the respective legal submissions filed by Counsel on the issue.
I have given consideration to Order 14 Rule 1 of C. I 47 which provides:
“Where in an action a Defendant has been served with a statement of claim and has filed appearance, the Plaintiff may on notice apply to the Court for judgment against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant has no defence to a claim included in the writ, or to a particular part on such a claim, or that the Defendant has no defence to such a claim or part of claim, except as to the amount of any damages. ”Further consideration has been given to the principles governing the grant or otherwise of applications of this nature.
The Supreme Court, in the case of SAM JONAH v DUODU-KUMI [2003-2004] SCGLR 50, stated the objective of Order 14 Rule 1 of C. I 47as follows: ”The objective or Order 14 is to facilitate the early conclusion of actions where it is clear from the pleadings that the Defendant therein has no cogent defence.
It is intended to prevent a Plaintiff being delayed where there is no fairly arguable defence to be brought forward. ” (See Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edition, 516). What we are, therefore, required to do in this appeal is to ascertain whether, on the totality of the pleadings and all matters before the High Court at the moment it delivered the summary judgment, th