NAVSHANTI ROMESH vs. OSEI KWABENA [2016]DLHC4058

Date	2016-12-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC 84/2016
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC4058

DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

WILLIAM KUSI FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

KWABENA OPOKU-MENSAH FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2016]DLHC4058
																																						<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" >NAVSHANTI ROMESH <o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>OSEI KWABENA<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION), KUMASI]<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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

SUIT&nbsp;NO. OCC 84/2016&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 21ST
DECEMBER, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL
<o:p></o:p>WILLIAM KUSI FOR
PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT<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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

</div>CORAM: <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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

</div><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>In
this application brought pursuant to Order 14 of the High Court Civil Procedure
Rules, 2004, CI 47, the Applicant seeks against the Respondent an Order for
summary judgment.<o:p></o:p>The
grounds of the application are contained in the Affidavit in Support filed on
25/10/2016. The gravamen of the applicant’s motion per the affidavit is that
the Defendant/Respondent had committed himself to pay his indebtedness to the
Plaintiff/Applicant prior to the issuance of the Writ of Summons by the latter.
A copy of the issuance of the said Undertaking is attached to the affidavit and
marked Exhibit “AKP4”. Applicant prayed the court to grant the summary judgment
as the Defendant/Respondent’s Statement of Defence (Exhibit “AKP3”) does not
disclose any defence.<o:p></o:p>The
Respondent is opposed to the application and has demonstrated the grounds in an
affidavit in opposition. The relevant parts of the Affidavit in Opposition are
as follows:<o:p></o:p>“3. That I deny paragraph 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 and 11 of the plaintiff’s
affidavit in support.<o:p></o:p>4. That I am advised by counsel and verily believe same
to be true that the instant application is completely misconceived. <o:p></o:p>5. That the Power of Attorney on which the applicant relies
to depose to the Affidavit in Support is defective and does not clothe the plaintiff’s
attorney with the requisite capacity to swear to the said affidavit.<o:p></o:p>6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That I am advised by counsel and verily believe
same to be true that the resort by the applicant to applying for summary
judgment is facetious and completely ignores the applicable law relevant to
when a Party can resort to this mode of judgment to access relief(s).<o:p></o:p>7.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That I am advised by counsel that my Statement
of Defence leaves no doubt whatsoever in denying any indebtedness to the plaintiff
and consequently the instant application is without reference to the rules of
court as well as to the pertinent law relating to the circumstances which would
trigger an application such as the instant.<o:p></o:p>8.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That I am again advised by counsel and
verily believe same to be true that the applicant has completely misconstrued
the ambit of an application for summary judgment as when an issue of even minor
significance is joined with the Plaintiff which calls for an investigation of
same by hearing, summary judgment cannot be applied for.<o:p></o:p>9.