STANBIC BANK GHANA LIMITED vs MANUELA LABRISCA DJAN

BY COURT

Counsel for Defendant has written a letter to the Court praying for an adjournment to 16th October, 2023 on grounds of ill health but failed to attach any Medical Report.

The business for today is for the Motion for Summary Judgment to be moved. An Affidavit in Opposition has been filed and so the Court is minded to hear the motion for Summary Judgment today despite the absence of Defendant and her Counsel.

KWAME

We have a Motion for Summary Judgment. I move in terms of the Motion Paper, Affidavit in Support and attached Exhibits. I rely on the depositions in the Affidavit in Support of the said application.

In the Affidavit in Opposition filed on 24th July, 2023 no part of the 12 paragraphed affidavit in opposition discloses any legally justifiable reason why the instant application should not be granted.

In paragraph 4, it is stated that issues have been set down for trial after Statement of Defence had been filed. Our response to that is that the situation does not in any way disable this Court from entering Summary Judgment in Plaintiff’s favour.

The position of the law is that in determining an application for Summary Judgment where a Statement of Defence has been filed, the duty of the Court is to scrutinise the Statement of Defence to ascertain whether same constitutes a valid defence in Law.

We are saying that the Statement Defence constitutes an admission of Plaintiff's Claim. I refer the Court to paragraph 8 of the Statement Defence which reads as follows… (Counsel reads same to the Court) as well as the holding in the case of Afodofe vrs. Central Insurance Company [1992] 2GLR 207, Acquah J (as he then was).

The Rules of the Court specifically Order 58 Rule 3 of C.I. 47 specifically provides that an application for Summary Judgment cannot be filed unless Pre-trial Settlement Conference (PTSC) has been concluded. Having concluded Pre-trial, Plaintiff's/Applicant can file an application for Summary Judgment.

In paragraph 6 to 10 of the affidavit in opposition, Defendant/Respondent contradicts the admission made in paragraph 8 of their own Statement Defence by stating that Defendant has serviced the facility. No evidence was attached to prove that they have serviced the facility.

Secondly, paragraph 10 and 11 of the affidavit in opposition claim that Defendant has made payments not captured by Plaintiff. We are saying that this statement is untenable. In the light of Exhibit ‘UKE 5’ series attached to the instant application, w