ROOTS CAPITAL INCORPORATED v. ELSSY KESS LTD., ELSIE DOGBEGAH AND IRENE GANU

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