OKOMFO ANOKYE RURAL BANK LTD vs. REGIONAL PROJECT PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT AND ORS [2018]DLCA9935

OKOMFO ANOKYE RURAL BANK LTD vs. REGIONAL PROJECT PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT AND OR... [2018]DLCA9935

Date	2018-12-10
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BFS 02/2019
Citation No.	[2018]DLCA9935

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE

KWASI BEMPAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF

KWADWO OWUSU AMOAH FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2018]DLCA9935
																																						<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" >OKOMFO
ANOKYE RURAL BANK LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>REGIONAL
PROJECT PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT AND ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. BFS 02/2019 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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:
10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWASI
BEMPAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">KWADWO OWUSU AMOAH FOR THE RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:normal;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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Order
59 rule 4 (1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47) provides:<o:p></o:p>Rule
4—Default in Moneylender's Action<o:p></o:p>(1)
In a moneylender’s action, judgment in default of appearance or in default of
defence shall not be entered except with leave of the Court.<o:p></o:p>(2)
Notice of an application for the grant of leave under this rule shall be served
on the defendant.<o:p></o:p>(3)
On the hearing of the application, whether the defendant appears or not, the
Court may<o:p></o:p>(a)
exercise the powers of the Court under the Moneylenders Ordinance, 1940 (Cap.
176);<o:p></o:p>(b)
give leave to enter final judgment for the whole or part of the claim, if satisfied
that notice of the application has been duly served; and<o:p></o:p>(c)
as regards any part of the claim in respect of which leave to enter final
judgment is refused, make or give any such order or directions as it considers
necessary for further proceedings.<o:p></o:p>In
this application on notice for judgment in default of defence, counsel for the
defendants/respondents has raised a preliminary legal objection to the
propriety of the application. He submits that per Order 59 rule 4 (1) of CI 47
as the entire action is a moneylender’s action and as such leave must be sought
from the court to enter final judgment.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the plaintiff/applicant submits that the application is competent as they
are coming under Order 13 rule 1 of CI 47.<o:p></o:p>Order
13 rule 1 provides:<o:p></o:p>“(1) Where the plaintiff's
claim against a defendant is for a liquidated demand only, and the defendant
fails to file a defence to the claim, the plaintiff may, after the expiration
of the period fixed by these Rules for filing the defence, apply, to enter final
judgment against that defendant for a sum not exceeding that claimed by the
writ in respect of the demand and for costs, and proceed with the action
against other defendants, if any.”<o:p></o:p>Order
59 rule 4 (1) deals specifically with default in moneylender’s action while
Order 13 rule 1 deals specifically with judgment in default of defence relating
to claim for liquidated demand in general. A careful reading of both provisions
show that a party must seek leave of the court through an application to enter
judgment in default of appearance.<o:p></o:p>From
the writ of summons and statement of claim, there is no doubt that the
plaintiff’s action is a moneylender’s action and as such the same must be
grounded under Order 59 rule 4 (1).<o:p></o:p>It
appears counsel for the respondent’s query relates mainly to the motion paper
which is praying the court for an <a name="_Hlk532200176">Order to Sign Final
Judgment</a> against the 1st to 3rd Defendants instead of
seeking leave of the court to enter final judgment.<o:p></o:p>It
is trite learning that in construing a document, it is important to look at the
document as a whole. A motion paper does not stand alone in an application of
this nature, it is important to look at the supporting affidavit as well in
order to ascertain the intention of the applicant. After reading the motion
paper and the supporting affidavit it is clear that the applicant is seeking
leave of the court to enter judgment in default of appearance. Paragraph 9 of
the supporting affidavit sums up the applicant’s prayer. It states as follows:<o:p></o:p>“That I pray that FINAL
JUDGMENT be entered in favour of the Plaintiff as against the 1st, 2nd
and 3rd Defendants for the reliefs endorsed on the Writ of Summons.”<o:p></o:p></</main>