DR. GIDEON YAO AMENYEDOR (PLAINTIFF) vs. IDEAL FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED (DEFENDANT) [2018]DLHC7194

DR. GIDEON YAO AMENYEDOR (PLAINTIFF) vs. IDEAL FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED (DEFENDAN... [2018]DLHC7194

Date	2018-11-21
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ/1408/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC7194

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).

WISDOM ANTHONIO FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

[2018]DLHC7194
																																						<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" >DR. GIDEON
YAO AMENYEDOR<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>IDEAL
FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (GENERAL
JURSIDICTION ‘2’), 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/1408/2018&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 21ST NOVEMBER, 2018<o:p></o:p>

WISDOM
ANTHONIO FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT<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>This is an application for Summary
Judgement.&nbsp; I have read the application
and the supporting affidavit.&nbsp; Although
the Defendant was served with the motion on the 9th November, 2018,
it has failed to file an affidavit in opposition.&nbsp; I have given regard to the statement of
defence filed on the 19th October, 2018.&nbsp; Thoughtful consideration has also been given
to Order 14 rule 1 of CI. 47 which provides that:<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>A
brief summary of the facts in this case is that the Plaintiff undertook a
premium fixed deposit on the 24th May 2018 with the Defendant in the
sum of GH¢336,182.76.&nbsp; This investment
was to mature on 23rd August, 2018 at an interest of 25% per annum.&nbsp; A fixed deposit certificate No.
IFL/FD/270/05/18 dated 24th May 2018 was issued by the Defendant to
the Plaintiff.&nbsp; At the maturity of the
said fixed deposit, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff his
investment.&nbsp; The Plaintiff’s efforts to
get his investment having failed, the Plaintiff filed a Writ of Summons asking
for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>“a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An
order directed at Defendant to pay to Plaintiff forthwith the sum of
GH¢357,136.62 being the sums due and payable to Plaintiff from Defendant as a
result of Defendant having on 24th May, 2018 received from the Plaintiff
the said sum of GH¢336,182.76 as fixed deposit investment with promises to pay
the said sum of GH¢356,136.62 to Plaintiff on the maturity date of 23rd
August, 2018 which sum Defendant has failed or refused to pay to Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>b)&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Interest on the said sum of
GH¢357,136.62 at the prevailing commercial rate of 25% per annum from 23rd
August, 2018 to date of final payment and cost on full recovery basis including
lawyer’s fees.”<o:p></o:p>The
core issue requiring my adjudication in this application is as to whether or
not the Defendant should be allowed to defend the cause?<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Supreme Court in the case of SANUNU v SALIFU [2009] SCGLR 586,
held that under Order 14 rule 1 of the CI. 47, a trial Judge “must
come to the conclusion that on the face of the claim there is no defence to the
action.&nbsp; A defence set up need only show
that there is a triable issue; and leave to defence ought to be given unless
there is clearly no defence in law and no possibility of a real defence on the
question of fact.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Again,
in the case of SAM JONAH v DUODU-KUMI [2003-2004] SCGLR 50, the Supreme Court,
elaborating on the objective of Order 14 rule (1) of CI. 47, stated:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>