Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
Introduction
By a Writ dated the 21st of March, 2023, the Plaintiff/Applicant (Plaintiff)
seeks inter alia the following reliefs against the Defendant;
a) An order for the recovery of One Million Three Hundred and Forty-Four
Thousand Five Hundred and Eleven United States Dollars Nine Cens
(USD$ 1,344,511.09) being the total outstanding amount owed by the
Defendants to Plaintiff
b) Interest on the principal sum of Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand
United States Dollars (USD$ 750,000.00) at the contractually agreed
rate of 11% per annum from the 11th of February, 2023 until date of final
payment.
c) Default interest on the principal sum of Seven Hundred and Fifty
Thousand United States Dollars (USD$ 750,000.00) at the
contractually agreed rate of 11% per annum from the 11th of February, 2023
until date of final payment.
On the 26th of April, 2023 the Defendants/Respondents (Defendants) albeit
belatedly, entered conditional appearance to Plaintiff’s Writ but are yet to
file a Defence to Plaintiff’s claim.
Application for Summary Judgement
On the 3rd of July, 2023 the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, premised on
Order 14 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004 (CI 47), praying for
Summary Judgement against the Defendants for the reliefs endorsed on its
Writ.
Plaintiff’s case in sum is that the Defendants, as evidenced by Exhibit TAA
13 do not dispute their indebtedness to Plaintiff. According to Plaintiff the
Defendants had indeed promised to make payment as far back as August
2018 but had reneged on this undertaking.
Plaintiff maintains that Defendants have no viable defence to its claims for
which reason there should be no need for a plenary trial of the suit hence
the present Application.
Defendants’ Opposition
The Application is vehemently opposed. On the 19 th July, 2023 when both
parties appeared before this Court. Counsel for Defendants contended that
the facts deposed to in the affidavit in support of the Motion were not a true
reflection of what transpired between the parties and therefore prayed for
leave to file a Supplementary affidavit in opposition which was duly
granted by this Court.
From a reading of the Defendants depositions, I find that, even though they
do not deny being indebted to the Plaintiff, their case is that;
a) They have not at any time admitted being indebted to the Plaintiff in the
sum endorsed on Plaintiff’s Writ.
b) They have made several payments to Plaintiff as evidenced by Ex