[2018]DLHC9303 Login to Read Full Case <span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:#00B0F0">OKOMFO ANOKYE RURAL BANK LTD<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif;color:#00B0F0">REGIONAL PROJECT PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT AND ORS<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family: "Book Antiqua",serif">[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"> <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"><span style="font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">SUIT NO. BFS 02/2019 DATE: 10TH DECEMBER, 2018<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">KWASI BEMPAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF <o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"> <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"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">KWADWO OWUSU AMOAH FOR THE RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif"> <b>CORAM:</b> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE<o:p></o:p></span></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="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"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Book Antiqua",serif">RULING<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:200%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">Order 59 rule 4 (1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47) provides:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:200%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">Rule 4—Default in Moneylender's Action<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 200%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">(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></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 200%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">(2) Notice of an application for the grant of leave under this rule shall be served on the defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 200%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">(3) On the hearing of the application, whether the defendant appears or not, the Court may<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 200%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">(a) exercise the powers of the Court under the Moneylenders Ordinance, 1940 (Cap. 176);<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 200%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">(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></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 200%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">(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></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:200%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">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></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:200%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">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></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:200%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">Order 13 rule 1 provides:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 200%"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:200%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">“(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></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:200%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">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></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:200%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">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></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:200%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">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 1<sup>st</sup> to 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants instead of seeking leave of the court to enter final judgment.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:200%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">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></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;line-height: 200%"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:200%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">“That I pray that FINAL JUDGMENT be entered in favour of the Plaintiff as against the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2<sup>nd</sup> and 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants for the reliefs endorsed on the Writ of Summons.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:200%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">I therefore regard the use of the phrase Order to Sign Final Judgment as a technical error on the face the motion and this should not deflect the cause of justice in the light of the purport of the entire motion.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:200%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:200%;font-family:"Book Antiqua",serif">Our Supreme Court has consistently rejected the use of technicalities in the resolution of cases. In GIHOC Refrigeration & Household Products v. Hanna Assi [2005-2