MR. COLLINS OTOO vs. SOLOMON PUPULAMPO AND EMMANUEL MANU [2013]DLCA5593

Date	2013-12-19
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL: NO. H1/117/2013
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA5593

KUSI APPIAH J.A (PRESIDING)

ACQUAYE J.A

SOWAH (MRS) J.A

[2013]DLCA5593
																																						<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" >MR. COLLINS OTOO<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SOLOMON PUPULAMPO AND
EMMANUEL MANU<o:p></o:p>(1ST
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, 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">

CIVIL APPEAL: NO. H1/117/2013&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DECEMBER19,
2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>KUSI APPIAH J.A (PRESIDING), ACQUAYE J.A, SOWAH (MRS)
J.A<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="MsoBodyText" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%;
tab-stops:185.3pt;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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>SOWAH, J.A.<o:p></o:p>The background facts to this present appeal are as
follows:<o:p></o:p>On 24th June 2009, the 1st
defendant /appellant herein [hereinafter called the appellant] who was the plaintiff
in the Tema High Court Suit No H1/117/2013 obtained summary judgment against
the plaintiff/respondent herein [hereinafter referred to simply as the
respondent] who was the defendant in that suit for the sum of GH¢30,000.00 with
bank interest thereon and costs of GH¢2,000.00. The trial judge entered the summary
judgment based on a letter written by the respondents’ lawyer explicitly
admitting that the respondent took the amount of money claimed by the appellant
but on behalf of a Mr. Manu [sic Mainoo] who was not a party in that Suit.<o:p></o:p>The respondent appealed the summary judgment to the
Court of Appeal. The grounds of appeal were as follows:<o:p></o:p><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The learned High Court Judge erred in law when he
entered summary judgment against the defendant/appellant on a claim by the
plaintiff/respondent which is based entirely on an allegation of fraud.<o:p></o:p><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The learned High Court Judge erred when he failed
to consider the defence of the appeal that Mr. Emmanuel Mainoo’s acceptance of
liability for the payment of the sum of GH¢30,000.00 to the respondent is an
issue that ought to be determined by the court.<o:p></o:p>The Court of Appeal stayed
execution of the judgment on terms; namely that the respondent pay the debt of
GH¢30,000.00 and costs of GH¢2,000.00 into court. <o:p></o:p>The appeal was subsequently
heard and was dismissed on 19th July, 2012 in a judgment to be found
at pages 25-33 of this Record of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held inter alia
that the claim of the appellant contained two causes of action, namely.<o:p></o:p><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
A
specific claim for the sum of GH₵30,000 being financial assistance and
interest thereon, and <o:p></o:p><span style="mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
General
and exemplary damages for fraud.<o:p></o:p>It held that the trial judge had been right in
granting the application for summary judgment as this was based on the first
claim or cause of action for financial assistance which was independent from
the second claim for general damages for fraud. That the trial judge had not
made any reference to the claim for fraud nor awarded general damages and
therefore that claim was still subsisting and during its hearing the respondent
would have the chance to demonstrate that he had not defrauded the appellant.<o:p></o:p>