GHANA HOME LOANS LIMITED vs. MR. CLIFFORD TAGOE [2017]DLHC1286

Date	2017-06-23
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: CM/0301/16
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC1286

SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU J.

MS. NITA STEELE FOR THE PLAINTIFF

MR. STEPHEN BATSE FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2017]DLHC1286
																																						<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" >GHANA HOME LOANS LIMITED<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MR. CLIFFORD
TAGOE<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

&nbsp;SUIT
NO.: CM/0301/16&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 23RD
JUNE, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MS. NITA STEELE&nbsp; FOR THE PLAINTIFF<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MR. STEPHEN BATSE FOR THE DEFENDANT &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU 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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

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

</div>The instant application seeks an order of the court
to enter summary judgment in favour of the applicant against the respondent.
The application is premised upon a writ of summons and a statement of claim
filed by the plaintiff in which the plaintiff claims against the defendant the
sum of $19,217.00 together with interest and the judicial sale of property used
as security for a facility made available to the defendant by the plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>After the defendant had filed his defence, the
parties, in accordance with Order 58 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules,
2004, CI 47 went through the mandatory pre-trial settlement but could not
settle the matter. Thereafter, the pre-trial judge set down the issue “whether
or not the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the writ of summons”
for trial.<o:p></o:p>It was after all these steps have been gone through
that the plaintiff filed the instant application for summary judgment against
the defendant.<o:p></o:p>The defendant/respondent who is opposed to the
application says that the statement of defence which he filed raises triable
issues for which reason this application is incompetent.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant has
been described by the plaintiff in paragraph 6 of the statement of claim as
balances outstanding on the loan facility made available to the defendant.
According to the plaintiff, the amount of $19, 217.00 has been outstanding
since 11th April, 2016. Indeed, the agreement between the parties
has it that the loan was to be serviced by the payment of the sum of $282.04
per month inclusive of interest from the 1st February 2009 for a
period of 15 years. <o:p></o:p>The defendant’s answer to the plaintiff’s claim is
that he has, at all times material to this suit serviced the repayment of the
loan and that it was on only one occasion that the plaintiff wrote to him
demanding an outstanding amount of $1, 608.40 after which the instant writ was
issued. This answer is contained in paragraph 6 and 7 of the statement of
defence.<o:p></o:p>The effect of the averment contained in the
statement of defence, particularly, paragraphs 6 and 7 is that the defendant
disputes the amount which is alleged to be outstanding by the plaintiff as at
11th April, 2016.<o:p></o:p>In the opinion of the court, therefore, the
averments in the statement of defence hit at the heart of the plaintiff’s
claim.<o:p></o:p>Order 14 rule 1 of the High Court Rules under which
the present application is brought states that<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Application for summary judgment<o:p></o:p>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 the 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>In view of the above provision, all that a respondent
needs to do is to show that he has a defence to the claim made against him by
the applicant. It is the position of the law that where triable issues are
raised in the defence, judgment cannot</main>