[2010]DLSC6152 Login to Read Full Case <span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:115%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace: none"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";color:#00B0F0">BALLAST NEDAM GHANA B.V<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:115%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace: none"><b><i><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;">(</span></i></b><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT<b>)</b></span></i><i><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";color:#00B0F0">HORIZONMARINE CONSTRUCTION LTD<i><o:p></o:p></i></span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:center; line-height:115%"><b><i><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;">(</span></i></b><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT<b>)<o:p></o:p></b></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;">[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]</span><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><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="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: 115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in; mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/18/2010</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma"> </span><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;"> DATE:</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman""> </span><span style="font-size:10.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">28TH JULY, 2010<b> <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: 115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">F.S. TSIKATA FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">DAVID OFOSU-DORTE FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.</span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;"> <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </div><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;">CORAM: <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><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="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: 115%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">WOOD (MRS) C.J. (PRESIDING), BROBBEY JSC, DOTSE JSC, YEBOAH JSC, GBADEGBE JSC<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: 115%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:115%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace: none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in; mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:Tahoma">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">GBADEGBE, JSC: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal that reversed the judgment of the High Court, Accra, which had allowed in favour of the appellant an application for summary judgment. It appears from the judgment of the Court of Appeal that it was of the opinion that there were triable issues disclosed by the respondent’s affidavit to the application under Order 14 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, CI 47. Delivering the judgment of the court, Kusi Appiah JA after referring to the case of SADHUWANI v AL-HASSAN [1999-2000] 1 G.L.R 19 observed as follows at pages 162-163 of the record of appeal: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">“In the instant appeal, it is one of the appellant’s contentions that the mode of payment to the respondent was subject to the general terms and conditions of the contract, clause 4, where the defendant/appellant has to satisfy itself that the works had been properly done according to the specifications before invoices are accepted and payments made (see Exhibit “KET 4”). If the appellant claims that they did not accept the last invoices for payment because the respondent had not done the works in accordance with their specifications, it certainly is an issue for the court to determine and apportion responsibility.” <o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">In our view, the above pronouncement by the learned justices of the Court of Appeal whose judgment is under attack before us satisfies the requirements of Order 14 rule 3(1) of the High Court Rules, CI 47 that is expressed thus: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;line-height: 115%"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">“A defendant may show cause against the application by affidavit or otherwise to the satisfaction of the court.” <o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">Although the procedure for summary judgment under order 14 enables the appellant to obtain speedy and summary judgment without a trial even in cases where the defendant to the action expresses an intention to defend the action, the court may only grant the application in cases where the defendant is unable to set up a good defence or raise an issue which ought to be tried. See: (1) ANGLO-ITALIAN BANK v WELLS, ANGLO-ITALIAN BANK v DAVIES (1878) 38 LT 197; (2) ROBERTS v PLANT [1895] 1 QB 597. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">We are of the opinion that the allegation by the respondent that the payment was subject to the appellant satisfying the requirement contained in clause 4 of the agreement was a good defence to the action and also raised an issue that under rule 5 (1) of Order 14 raised an issue that comes under the description ‘there ought for some other reason to be a trial of that claim or part of it.’ It is to be observed that respondent had in “Exhibit HMC 1A” and “HMC 1B” which were written before the commencement of the action herein raised issue with some works that the appellant had carried out under the agreement between them. These letters were written even before the appellant’s lawyers made a demand contained in “Exhibit KET6”, which was dated 10 August 2007 in respect of the same amount that is claimed by the appellant against the respondent in the action herein. As it seems those issues were not resolved before the writ herein was issued and therefore it was only right that when the appellants filed the application for summary judgment the respondent by way of defence in their affidavit in answer made reference to what in their view was an outstanding obligation that was undischarged by the appellant. In our thinking, the said defence was made in good faith and not being a sham ought to have been inquired to by the learned trial judge else its effect would be to shut out the respondent. Indeed, the respondent had categorically in its affidavit in answer to the application for summary judgment deposed to in paragraphs 11-14 as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;line-heigh