THRESHOLD COMPANY LIMITED v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- M. OWUSU, (J.A.) - PRESIDING
- KORBIEH, (J.A.)
- DZAMEFE, (J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The High Court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, which the defendant appealed, arguing that their defence disclosed triable issues and a statute of limitations claim. The Court of Appeal found that the High Court erred by not taking evidence on these issues and misinterpreted the Attorney General’s letter. Citing previous cases and procedural rules, the appellate court allowed the appeal, setting aside the summary judgment and remitting the case for trial.
MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A.:
On the 12th March, 2013, the High Court, Accra, granted the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment. In his ruling, the trial Judge held among other things that:
“I have studied the entire pleadings filed in the action together with the attachments. I have also considered submissions by counsel for the plaintiff and I have come to the conclusion that the statement of defence filed by the defendant on 8-3-2013 discloses no defence to the action at all, neither does it raise any triable issues. The defendant raises the fact that the action is statute barred but looking at the attachments, I think that the alleged defence is a sham. I therefore grant the plaintiff’s application and enter summary judgment for the plaintiff for the reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons as follows:
i. Interest on the contract value from the date of supply in 1997 on a reducing balance on a simple yearly average interest rate assessed at GH¢7,937,484,645.51 old Ghana cedis or new Ghana cedis ¢793,748.50 to July, 2003.
ii. Interest at the prevailing commercial bank rate on reliefs (27.1) and (27.2) from July, 2003 to date of final payment.”
Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:
i. The learned trial Judge erred when he ruled that the defendant’s defence discloses no defence to the action.
ii. The learned trial Judge erred when he concluded that the attachments filed by the plaintiff was enough for him to draw the conclusion that the defendants did not have a defence.
iii. The learned trial Judge erred when he failed to rule that the defence raised triable issues which could only be settled by a trial.
iv. The learned trial Judge erred when he failed to take into account the fact that the defendant had pleaded that the plaintiff’s claim was statute barred.
The relief sought from the Court of Appeal is for the entire ruling/judgment of the High Court be set aside.
Before dealing with the arguments advanced in support and against this appeal, I will give a brief background of this case.
The plaintiff in this case by its writ of summons claims against the defendant the following:
i. Interest on the contract value from the date of supply in 1997 on a reducing balance on a simple yearly average interest rate assessed at GH¢7,937,484,645.81 old Ghana cedis or new Ghana cedis ¢793,748.50 to July, 2013.
ii. General damages for breach of contract assessed at old Ghana