Owusu Ansah Samuel Kingston J. v. Menzgold Ghana Limited
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP MRS. ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH J
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Banking and Finance Law
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice Angelina Mensah-Homiah of the High Court (Commercial Court, Accra) granted the investor Plaintiffs application for summary judgment under Order 14 Rule 1 of C.I. 47. The Defendant investment firm admitted breach of its contractual relationship after Bank of Ghana and Securities & Exchange Commission notices questioned the validity of its business, and referenced a separate suit against the regulators that had been dismissed on 10 January 2019. No affidavit in opposition was filed, and counsel Ms. Yvonne Akuffo failed to submit promised legal arguments. Applying Supreme Court authorities on triable issues and the Commercial Courts pre-trial framework, the court found no viable defence. Guided by Kwame Agyemang Oduro v. Menzgold, the court ordered restitution of GH454,000 plus GH25,600 commission, interest at the BoG 91-day Treasury Bill rate from each investment date to final payment (less any returns), and costs of GH40,000.
Summary Judgment: when to grant same.
Before me is an application filed by the Plaintiff herein under Order 14 Rule 1 of the High Court(Civil Procedure) Rules 2004, C. I 47, praying for Summary Judgment against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant does not have any reasonable defence.
The application was filed on 22nd March 2019 and served on Counsel for the Defendant on 25th March 2019 through his Clerk Eric J. Aduadjoe.
It is provided under Order 14 Rule 1 of C. I. 47 that: 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 of such a claim, or that the Defendant has no defence to such a claim or part of a claim, except as to the amount of any damages claimed.
The method of making applications for Summary Judgments has been provided for under Order 14 Rule 2, that is by filing notice of the application, supported by an affidavit verifying the facts on which the relevant claim or part of the claim is based, and indicating that in the deponent’s belief, the Defendant has no defence, except as to the amount of any damages claimed.
The notice and a copy of the affidavit in support are to be served on the Defendant not less than four (4) clear days before the day named in the notice for the hearing of the application.
Rule 3 provides that when the application comes up for hearing, the Defendant may show cause against the application.
This may be done by affidavit or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Court.
If the Court is satisfied, it may grant leave to the Defendant to defend the action, otherwise it may give judgment for the Plaintiff on the claim or part of the claim as may be just. The preliminary requirements for making an application for Summary Judgment were discussed by Kpegah J. (as he then was) in the case of Yartel Boat Building Co.
v. Annan (1991) 2 GLR 11, that is: (a) The Defendant must have entered an appearance; (b) The Statement of Claim must be or have been served on the Defendant; and(c) The affidavit in support of the application must comply with the requirements of Rule 2. It has been held that the filing of a defence is not a bar to the filing of an application for Summary Judgment.
Thus, in Sanunu v. Salifu (2009) SCGLR 586 at 590, Baffoe-Bonnie JSC explained that: Order 14 rule 1 of