GANDY DIGITAL NV (PLAINTIFF) vs. GRAFTEC LTD (DEFENDANT) [2015]DLHC7259

Date	2015-12-17
Suit No.	SUIT NO. RPC/174/14
Citation No.	[2015]DLHC7259

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).

KOJO BOTSIO FOR THE PLAINTIFF - PESENT

CHARLES ZWENNES FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2015]DLHC7259
																																						<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" >GANDY
DIGITAL NV<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GRAFTEC LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></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. RPC/174/14&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
17TH DECEMBER, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>KOJO
BOTSIO FOR THE PLAINTIFF - PESENT<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">

CHARLES
ZWENNES FOR THE 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>The main issue requiring my adjudication in this
application is as to whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to summary
judgment on its reliefs (a), (b) and (C) as contained in their writ of summons.<o:p></o:p>A brief fact of the case is that the parties
entered into some form of agreement whereby the plaintiff supplied printing
inputs to the defendant.&nbsp; Upon the
delivery of some printing input to the defendant by the plaintiff on the 8th
March, 2012 and 20th December, 2012, the parties are not ad idem on
the type of input and its quality delivered.&nbsp;
Furthermore, there is a dispute arising out of the total amount
outstanding.&nbsp; These matters frosted the
relationship between the business partners.<o:p></o:p>I have read the application and the affidavits
filed by the parties.&nbsp; I have also
examined the documents annexed to the affidavits.&nbsp; I have given thoughtful consideration to the
High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) and the principles governing
the grant or otherwise of summary judgment.&nbsp;
It is however useful for a reproduction of the relevant extracts from
the High Court Rules, specifically Order 14 rule 1 thereof which provides:<o:p></o:p>’14.1 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
defendant has no defence to a claim included in the writ or to a particular
part of such a claim, or that the defendant has no defence to such a claim, or
part of a claim, except as to the amount of any damages claimed’.<o:p></o:p>Elaborating on the purpose of Order 14, Charles J.
(as he then was) said in ATLANTA TIMBER
CO. LTD VRS VICTORIA TIMBER CO. LTD (1962) 1 GLR 222, that:<o:p></o:p>‘The purpose of order 14 of the English rules which
is in pari material with the provisions of order 14(1) of our rules is to
enable a plaintiff to obtain summary judgment without trial, if he can prove
his claim clearly.&nbsp; If the defendant is
unable to set up a bonafide defence or raise an issue against the claim which
ought to be tried, then the application should be granted.<o:p></o:p>The Supreme Court in BALLAST NEDAM BV VRS HORIZON
MARINE CONSTRUCTION LTD (2010) SCGLR 435, echoed the essence of summary
judgment as follows;-<o:p></o:p>‘….although
the procedure for summary judgment under order 14 of the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI.47), enables the plaintiff 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…’<o:p></o:p>In an earlier decision, the Supreme Court has held
that under order 14 rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 C.I.
47), a trial judge must come to the conclusion that on the face of the
plaintiff’s claim, there is no defence to the action.&nbsp; Thus 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 the question
of facts.’ See the case of Senanu Vrs Salifu (2009) SCGLR 586.<o:p></o:p>Jessel MR summed up the essence of summary judgment
in Anglo-Italian Bank Vrs Wells (1878) 38 LT 197 at 199 as follows:-<o:p></o:p>‘Order 14 is intended to prevent a man, clearly entitled to money from
being delayed, where there is no fairly arguable defence to be brought’.<o:p></o:p>Before
dealing with the issues, I shall remind myself of what Bowen LJ<o:p></o:p>said
in Blaiberg Vrs. Abrams (1</main>