MABANI SEVEN COMPANY LIMITED (PLAINTIFF) vs. STAR ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & 4 ORS. (DEFENDANTS) [2019]DLHC7172

Date	2019-02-18
Suit No.	SUIT NO: OCC/0426/2017
DL Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7172

• HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON ‘J’.

• DAVID BOAFO LED BY KIZITO BEYUO FOR THE PLAINTIFF

• BERNARD AHIAFOR FOR THE 1ST 2ND AND 5TH DEFENDANTS

• AKOSUA GYAMFI DUAMROH FOR 4TH DEFENDANT

[2019]DLHC7172
 <div class="restriction-wrapper">
 <div class="container-lg">
 <div class="row">
 <div class="col-lg-12 restricted-content">
 <div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
 <div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
 <img class=""
 src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
 alt="Subscription based content">
 </div>
 </div>
 <a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login" class="btn btn-primary btn-lg" style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> Login to Read Full Case </a>
 
 </div>
 </div>
 </div>
 </div>
 <main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >MABANI SEVEN COMPANY
LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>STAR ASSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED &amp; 4 ORS.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION),
ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

SUIT
NO: OCC/0426/2017&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 18TH FEBRUARY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>DAVID BOAFO LED BY KIZITO
BEYUO FOR THE PLAINTIFF<o:p></o:p>BERNARD AHIAFOR FOR THE
1ST, 2ND, AND 5TH DEFENDANTS<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

AKOSUA
GYAMFI DUAMROH FOR 4TH DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K.
KOOMSON ‘J’.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>In this
application, the Plaintiff/Applicant (hereinafter called the Plaintiff) prays
the Court to enter Summary Judgment under Order 14 of the (High Court Civil
Procedure) Rules 2004 (C.I. 47) against the Defendants/Respondents (hereinafter
called the Defendants). <o:p></o:p>A brief summary
of the facts giving rise to this case is that, on the 23rd
September, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with a
company called MSF ENGENHARIA SA (MSF) for the construction of the Plaintiff’s
project in Accra. The Defendants on the 29th September, 2015 also
executed an advance payment bond with the MSF for the benefit of Plaintiff.&nbsp; I shall make references to these bonds in the
course of the ruling.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>In the course of
time, the Plaintiff made a demand for the payment of the bond on the
Defendants. The inability of the Defendants to pay the Plaintiff has brought
the parties to Court. The core issue requiring my adjudication in this
application is as to whether or not the Defendants should be allowed to defend
the cause. <o:p></o:p>I have read the
application and the various affidavits filed by the parties in this matter. I
have also read the respective legal submissions filed by Counsel on the issue.&nbsp; I have given consideration to Order 14 Rule 1
of C.I 47 which provides:<o:p></o:p>“Where
in an action a Defendant has been served with a statement of claim and has
filed appearance, the Plaintiff may on notice apply to the Court for judgment
against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant has no defence to a
claim included in the writ, or to a particular part on such a claim, or that
the Defendant has no defence to such a claim or part of claim, except as to the
amount of any damages.”<o:p></o:p>Further
consideration has been given to the principles governing the grant or otherwise
of applications of this nature. The Supreme Court, in the case of SAM JONAH v DUODU-KUMI [2003-2004] SCGLR 50,
stated the objective of Order 14 Rule 1 of C.I 47as follows:<o:p></o:p>”The
objective or Order 14 is to facilitate the early conclusion of actions where it
is clear from the pleadings that the Defendant therein has no cogent defence.
It is intended to prevent a Plaintiff being delayed where there is no fairly
arguable defence to be brought forward.” (See Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th
Edition, 516). What we are, therefore, required to do in this appeal is to
ascertain whether, on the totality of the pleadings and all matters before the
High Court at the moment it delivered the summary judgment, the Respondent had,
demonstrably any defence in law or on the available fact, such as would justify
his being granted leave to defend the Appellant’s claim.”<o:p></o:p>In a later
decision, in the case of SANUNU v SALIFU
[2009] SCGLR 586, it was held by the Supreme Court that under Order 14 Rule
1 of C.I 47 a trial Judge “must come to the conclusion that on the
face of the claim there is no defence to the action. A defence set up need only
show that there is a triable issue; and leave to defend ought to be given unless
there is clearly no defence in law and no possibility of a real defence on a
question of fact.”<o:p></o:p>Kpegah J. (as he
then was) in YARTEL BOAT BUILDING
COMPANY v ANNAN [1991]2 GLR page 11 noted that Order 14;<o:p></o:p>“…
prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Plaintiff who wishes to obtain
summary judgment against an advisory. It does not confer on the Plaintiff an
absolute right to proceed for summary judgment in every case.”<o:p></o:p><</main>