SKY CONSULT (GHANA) LIMITED v. GHANA POST COMPANY LIMITED

MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A.:

On the 18-1-2010, the High Court, Accra ruled that:

“Having heard counsel’s argument and upon reading the processes filed, I am of the view that the application has been properly laid. I do not see any defence raised by the Defendant’s Statement of Defence. I therefore grant the application and enter summary Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for all the reliefs endorsed on the writs of summons as follows:

a. Refund of GH¢978,466.00

b. Interest as at 1st January, 2005.

Cost of GH¢2,000.00 for the plaintiff against the defendant”

Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the Defendant appealed to this court.

The Grounds of Appeal are:

i. The Learned Judge erred in law in summarily giving judgment to the plaintiff for the sum of GH¢978,466.00 with interest from 1-1-2005 when the evidence before him disclosed that the business started in June 2005 and that no such amount was owed to plaintiff as at 1-1-2005.

ii. The Learned Judge erred in law when he relied on selective aspects of the recommendation of a Ministerial Committee as conclusive evidence of defendant’s indebtedness to plaintiff.

iii. In the light of the pleadings and the processes filed in the case, the Learned Judge erred in determining the matter summarily as serious triable issues were raised.

iv. Additional Grounds of Appeal may be filed upon receipt of the record of proceedings.

The Relief sought from this court:

“That the Summary Judgment dated 18-1-2010 be set aside and the case heard on its merits.”

Before going into the arguments canvassed in support and against this appeal, I would like to give a brief background of this case.

The plaintiff/respondent herein referred to simply as respondent issued a writ of summons against the defendant/appellant herein referred to as appellant for the following reliefs.

1. Refund of GH¢978,466.00

2. Interest from 1st January, 2005.

3. Costs.

In the 14 paragraph statement of claim which accompanied the writ of summons, the plaintiff avers among other things that, it is the patent owner of a technology known as ‘Instant Money Transfer (IMT), which is a technology that facilitates money transfers to various parts of the country. The plaintiff continued that, it entered into an agreement with the defendant sometime in December, 2004 to operate IMT service in Ghana and an agreement was executed to that effect. By that agreement, the plaintiff was to provide the technology, software, trade name a