CAL BANK (PLAINTIFF) vs. HIPPO TRANSPORT & 5 ORS (DEFENDANTS) [2018]DLHC7192

Date	2018-11-15
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0156/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC7192

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).

FELIX QUARTEY FOR PLAINTIFF

SAMUEL QUANSAH FOR DEFENDANTS

[2018]DLHC7192
																																						<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" >CAL BANK<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>HIPPO
TRANSPORT &amp; 5 ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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. CM/RPC/0156/2018&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 15TH NOVEMBER, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>FELIX
QUARTEY FOR PLAINTIFF<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">

SAMUEL
QUANSAH FOR DEFENDANTS<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 is whether or not the Plaintiff is
entitled to summary judgment on its reliefs as endorsed on the Writ of Summons.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>A brief facts of the case are that the
Plaintiff, registered under the laws of Ghana to conduct the business of
banking, granted an Import Credit Line Facility of USD16,000,000.00 and an
overdraft facility of GH¢3,000,000.00 in October, 2014 to the 1st
Defendant. To secure the facility granted, it is alleged by the Plaintiff that
the 2nd to 6th Defendants executed a joint and several
guarantees in their capacities as Directors of the 1st Defendant. As
a further security measure the parties entered into a collateral management
agreement with Mondial Logistics Limited who acted as the agents of the
Plaintiff and among other things controlled and kept the goods, i.e. sugar,
imported by the 1st Defendant, for and on behalf of the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff contends that the 1st Defendant could not settle its
indebtedness under the facilities advanced to it for which reason the present
suit was commenced to recover any outstanding balance due and owing from the
Defendants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I have read the
application and the supporting affidavit, I have also considered the affidavit
in opposition filed by the Defendants.&nbsp; I
have further given consideration to the pleadings filed by the parties in the
case.&nbsp; Thoughtful consideration has also
been given to the principles governing the grant or otherwise of applications
for summary judgment.&nbsp; Regard has been
given to Order 14 rule 1 of CI. 47 which provides that:<o:p></o:p>“14.1. Where
in an action a Defendant has been served with a statement of claim and has
filed an 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>The
essence of summary judgment was echoed by the Supreme Court in the case of BALLAST
NEDAM BV v. HORIZON MARINE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [2010] SCGLR 435 where
it held that:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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 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>The
Supreme Court in an earlier case of SANUNU v. SALIFU [2009] SCGLR 586,
held that under Order 14 rule 1 of CI. 47, a trial Judge:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>