GANIYU ANINSON MUSTAPHA vs. NATIONAL INVESTMENT BANK LTD [2003]DLCA6456

Date	2003-05-29
Suit No.	COURT OF APPEAL NO.: 103/2002
Citation No.	[2003]DLCA6456

OWUSU-ANSAH JA (PRESIDING) ANINAKWAH JA. ASIAMAH JA.

APPELLANT IN PERSON

MISS SUSAN DOWKOR FOR MICHAEL AMAFU-DEI FOR RESPONDENT

[2003]DLCA6456
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-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" >GANIYU ANINSON MUSTAPHA<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NATIONAL INVESTMENT BANK
LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>COURT
OF APPEAL NO.: 103/2002&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: 29TH MAY, 2003<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">

COUNSEL:&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;&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;
APPELLANT IN PERSON <o:p></o:p>

</div><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;
mso-border-between:1.5pt solid windowtext;mso-padding-between:1.0pt;padding-bottom:
1.0pt;mso-padding-bottom-alt:1.0pt;border-bottom:1.5pt solid windowtext;
mso-border-bottom-alt:1.5pt solid windowtext">CORAM:&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;&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
OWUSU-ANSAH JA (PRESIDING) ANINAKWAH JA. ASIAMAH JA.<o:p></o:p>

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

</div>ASIAMAH,
JA <o:p></o:p>This
is an interlocutory appeal brought by the Plaintiff/Appellant against the
ruling of the trial High Court to the effect that this is not a proper case
where the Plaintiff/Appellant Civil Motion can secure summary judgment under
Sections 1 and 2 of Order 14 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954
(LN 140A) as amended by LI 1129.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;To obtain judgment under this Order the
applicant is required as of jural necessity and prerequisite to state the
following facts in his summons:—<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(1) The reliefs sought by him;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(2) An affidavit verifying the facts on which
his claim or part of it is based; and that<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(3) In his relief the default has no defence
to his claim or part thereof. <o:p></o:p>The
appellant had no difficulty in stating the relief under (1) &amp; (3) above. He
is seeking the recovery of US $10,000 being as he stated in both the
indorsement to his writ and summons for summary judgment "long outstanding
overseas per diem allowance due from Defendant to plaintiff during his
employment with the Defendant", and that the defendant has no defence to
the action.<o:p></o:p>It
is not enough to state that a party has no defence to an action. The applicant
must go a little further to provide more facts why in his belief he thinks
there is no defence to the action. It is precisely for this purpose that the
law requires an applicant to state in his supporting affidavit "facts on
which the relevant claim or part of a claim is based", see Order 14 Rule
2(1). I believe the eventual purpose of Order 14 Rule 2(1) is, inter alia, to let
the defendant and the court know when the right of action accrued and whether
or not the law on limitation of action in the matters has not been breached. By
failing to state when the appellant ceased to be in the respondent's employ,
your Lordships are being, as it were, pushed into a speculative position to
conjecture. The dispensation of justice in a court of law does not concern
itself with speculation. An issue emerges here which can only be resolved by
evidence at a trial.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;I hasten to mention that the appellant had in
December, 1997 instituted this same action against the Respondent herein
claiming the same sum of money in suit No. C.753/97. Summons for directions was
taken by the trial High Court on 29"' January, 1998. And subsequent to
this the plaintiff on 12th October, 1999 filed a "notice of
withdrawal" and stated in the said notice of withdrawal thus:—<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"... the plaintiff herein hereby wholly
withdraws his claim in the above mentioned case". <o:p></o:p>Two of the issues out of a total of 19
issues set down for hearing in the suit numbered, C.753/97 aforementioned were
these:—<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"(a) Whether or not the plaintiff became
entitled to payment of overseas per diem allowance" and<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(r.) whether or not plaintiff's claim is
statute-barred." <o:p></o:p>