AUBREY TSATUS TAMAKLOE AND ANOTHER vs. COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT LIMITED [2017]DLHC3310

Date	2017-06-12
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ 366/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3310

ERIC K. BAFFOUR ESQ. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

PLAINTIFF APPEARS IN PERSON

R. O. SOLOMON ESQ FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT APPEARING WITH …

[2017]DLHC3310
																																						<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" >AUBREY TSATUS TAMAKLOE AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT LIMITED<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT
(GENERAL JURISDICTION 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. GJ
366/2017&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;12TH JUNE, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>PLAINTIFF APPEARS IN PERSON<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">

R. O. SOLOMON
ESQ FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT APPEARING WITH …<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>ERIC K. BAFFOUR ESQ. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<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="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>It is stated under Order 14 Rule 1 of the High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules that:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Plaintiff/Applicants
have mounted this application for summary judgment contending that the
Defendant/Respondent has no defence to the action. 1st plaintiff
claim, on the endorsement on the writ claim that defendant is indebted to it to
the tune of USD$13,365.28 whiles 2nd plaintiff claims an amount of
USD$10,432.32 together with interest. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
factual basis of this application can briefly be stated as follows: 1st Plaintiff
responded to the promotion of defendant by applying to purchase a four bedroom
house with an initial payment of US$1.526 and was issued with a scheme holder’s
certificate by the defendant. To applicant the total monthly payment that he made
came up to US$13.365.28 and attached the necessary receipts of payment. In
similar faction the 2nd plaintiff also became a scheme holder with
monthly payments that came up to US$10.432.32 for a three bedroom house.<o:p></o:p>To
plaintiffs defendant has been unable to deliver the properties after making 24
instalments per the agreement and has also failed or refused to refund their
monies to them. <o:p></o:p>In
an application such as this a court must be circumspect in shutting the door to
the defence of a defendant unless it is pointless to proceed beyond this point
to trial. For as stated in the case of SAM
JONAH v DUODU KUMI [2003-2004] SCGLR 50 that:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“the
objective of Order 14 of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) as amended is
to facilitate the early conclusion of actions where it is clear from the
pleadings that the defendant has no cogent defence. It is intended to prevent a
plaintiff delayed when there is no fairly arguable defence to be brought
forward. In the instant case, on the totality of the pleadings and the matters
before the High Court at the moment it had delivered the summary judgment in
favour of the plaintiff, the defendant had no demonstrably any defence, in law
or on the available facts such as would justify his being granted leave to
defend the plaintiff claim”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
question posed for my consideration in an application of this nature is whether
there are triable issues or whether defendant has adduced facts that may constitute
a plausible defence or whether there is a genuine or substantial question of
law or facts to be tried or investigated before the court. See Halbury’s Laws
of England 4th Edition 519. See also the following cases:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>AXES CO LTD v OPOKU
[2012] 38 MLRG@19<o:p></o:p>ASAMOAH v MARFOR
[2012] 38 MLRG 71<o:p></o:p>BALLAST NEDAM GHANA LTD v
HORIZON MARINE CONSTR</main>