NAVSHANTI ROMESH v. OSEI KWABENA

RULING

In this application brought pursuant to Order 14 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004, CI 47, the Applicant seeks against the Respondent an Order for summary judgment.

The grounds of the application are contained in the Affidavit in Support filed on 25/10/2016. The gravamen of the applicant’s motion per the affidavit is that the Defendant/Respondent had committed himself to pay his indebtedness to the Plaintiff/Applicant prior to the issuance of the Writ of Summons by the latter. A copy of the issuance of the said Undertaking is attached to the affidavit and marked Exhibit “AKP4”. Applicant prayed the court to grant the summary judgment as the Defendant/Respondent’s Statement of Defence (Exhibit “AKP3”) does not disclose any defence.

The Respondent is opposed to the application and has demonstrated the grounds in an affidavit in opposition. The relevant parts of the Affidavit in Opposition are as follows:

“3. That I deny paragraph 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 and 11 of the plaintiff’s affidavit in support.

4. That I am advised by counsel and verily believe same to be true that the instant application is completely misconceived.

5. That the Power of Attorney on which the applicant relies to depose to the Affidavit in Support is defective and does not clothe the plaintiff’s attorney with the requisite capacity to swear to the said affidavit.

That I am advised by counsel and verily believe same to be true that the resort by the applicant to applying for summary judgment is facetious and completely ignores the applicable law relevant to when a Party can resort to this mode of judgment to access relief(s).

That I am advised by counsel that my Statement of Defence leaves no doubt whatsoever in denying any indebtedness to the plaintiff and consequently the instant application is without reference to the rules of court as well as to the pertinent law relating to the circumstances which would trigger an application such as the instant.

That I am again advised by counsel and verily believe same to be true that the applicant has completely misconstrued the ambit of an application for summary judgment as when an issue of even minor significance is joined with the Plaintiff which calls for an investigation of same by hearing, summary judgment cannot be applied for.

That a cursory look at my Statement of Defence will show that I have an ironclad defence to the instant suit contrary to the postulations of applicant.”

In moving the motion, counsel for the Ap