SUMAILA SANUNU v. FRANKLIN GADO SALIFU
April 22, 2009
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
- ATUGUBA J.S.C. (PRESIDING)
- AKUFFO (MS) J. S C.
- DATE-BAH (DR) J.S.C.
- OWUSU (MS) J.S.C.
- BAFFOE-BONNIE J.S.C
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Corporate Law
April 22, 2009
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Baffoe-Bonnie J.S.C., reviewed a dispute arising from a Ghana Telecom contract awarded to Franksali Enterprise Ltd to construct payphone shelters and telephone stands in the Wa District. The Appellant, cash-strapped, sought financing from the Respondent under a statutory declaration to jointly execute and share profits. After payment of 137,286,033.50 to the company, the Respondent claimed sole financing and sought summary judgment in the High Court, relying on a "CONTRACT/AGREEMENT" document. The High Court granted summary judgment and the Court of Appeal affirmed, finding no real grounds of defence. On special leave, the Supreme Court held that Order 14 permits summary judgment only where there is no bona fide defence, identifying triable issues including disputed financing amounts, duress regarding a promissory note not pleaded, and corporate separateness. The Court allowed the appeal and remitted the case for trial on the merits.
BAFFOE-BONNIE, J. S. C:-
The Defendant/Appellant,(Appellant herein) a contractor, was awarded a contract by Ghana Telecom to build Payphone Shelters and Telephone Stand structures in the Wa District. As the Appellant’s company was cash strapped he approached the Plaintiff/Respondent, (Respondent herein) to assist him financially to execute the contract. The Appellant made a statutory declaration to jointly execute the contract and share the profit from the contract sum. The Appellant claims in Paragraph 4 of his statement of defence that the statutory declaration was between Franksali Enterprise Ltd of which the Appellant is the Managing Director and the Respondent.
Upon completion of the contract a total sum of ¢137,286,033.50 was paid to the Appellant Company. The Respondent claimed he alone financed the entire project to the tune of ¢107,627,000[Paragraph 8 and 9 of the Statement of claim] and this was denied by the Appellant [Paragraph 8 of the statement of defence]. The Appellant stated that the Respondent informed one Mr. Ibrahim Sefa that he spent an amount of ¢95,000,000 on the execution of the project. Despite the respondents refusal to give receipts to the Appellants to show how much he, Respondent, actually spent the appellant paid an amount of ¢94,074,631 to the Respondent.
On the appellant’s failure to pay what the respondent deemed to be due him on the agreement he brought an action at the High Court claiming a number of reliefs. After the appellant had entered appearance and filed a defence the Respondent applied for summary judgment claiming the Appellant had no defence to the action. To the affidavit supporting the application for summary judgment was annexed a document titled CONTRACT/AGREEMENT in which the defendant was admitting liability and promising to pay certain sums of money within a certain period. The application for summary judgment was granted. The appellant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal against the summary judgment was equally dismissed.
The Court of Appeal held (page 8)
“-considering that the statement of defence does not disclose any real grounds of defence, we are of the view that the learned trial judge was right in coming to the conclusions he did based on the findings of facts before him i.e. the documentary evidence exhibited. We will therefore not disturb his judgement.”
It is this decision that the Appellant is contesting.
After special leave to appeal had been granted by this court, the appellant filed