GH - Oval Microfinance Ltd v. Regina Owusu Kuffour

The Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant were: a) An order for the payment of the sum of GH¢38, 700. 00 being the balance due and owing as at 20th November 2013 on account of loan facility extended to Defendant by Plaintiff on 19th February 2013. b) Interest on the sum of GH¢38, 700. 00 at the rate of 6% per month from 20th November 2013 up to and inclusive of the date of final payment.

c) Costs including lawyer’s fees assessed at 15%. d) Damages for breach of contract.

The Defendant in her Statement of Defence contended that she had renegotiatedthe terms of the loan and had made payments to the Plaintiff following suchnegotiations.

She contended further that she was made to pay 0. 5% of the loan inrespect of an insurance policy.

She therefore prayed the Plaintiff to fall on theinsurance policy to make good on her indebtedness.

The issues set down for trial were as follows: 1. Whether or not the Defendant owes the Plaintiff any outstanding balance? 2. If so whether or not it is the insurance company that should settle the Defendant’s indebtedness to the Plaintiff? 3. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to sue the Defendant for the recovery of any outstanding balance? 4. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to its claim against the Defendant? The matter was set down for hearing on 11th December 2014. It was furtheradjourned to 12th February 2015. Hearing notices were ordered to be servedpersonally on the Defendant.

When this failed, hearing notices were ordered to beserved by substitution which was carried out on 9th April 2015. Neither the Defendant nor her Solicitors were in court.

In Ankumah v. City Investment Co.

Ltd (2007/2008) SCGLR 1064 it was held that acourt was entitled to give judgment if a party failed to appear after he had beengiven notice of the proceedings.

For then it would be justifiable to assume that hedid not wish to be heard.

In the case of Re: West Coast Dyeing and Another(1987/88) 2 GLR 561, the court held that when a party refused to attend the trialand to testify, the court would be entitled to proceed with the trial and todetermine the case on the basis of evidence adduced.

It is further provided for in Order 36 r 1 (2) of the High Court Civil ProcedureRules (2004) CI 47 thus: 1.

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, dismissthe counterclaim, if any, and allow the plaintiff to prove the claim;