FRANKLIN AMEGASHITSI (PLAINTIFF) vs. IDEAL FINANCE LIMITED (DEFENDANT) [2019]DLHC7166

Date	2019-04-01
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ/3392019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7166

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON ‘J’.

KOFI SOMOAH FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

ARCHIE MARTIN DANSO FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2019]DLHC7166
																																						<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" >FRANKLIN AMEGASHITSI<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>IDEAL FINANCE LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<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. GJ/3392019&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;DATE: 1ST APRIL, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>KOFI SOMOAH FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT<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">

ARCHIE MARTIN DANSO FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT<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 application has been brought under
Order 14 Rule 1 of the (High Court Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) for
an order entering Summary Judgment in favour of the Plaintiff against the
Defendant.<o:p></o:p>I have read the application and the
supporting affidavit. It is observed that the Defendant did not file any
affidavit in opposition though Defendant was served on the 5th day
of March, 2019.<o:p></o:p>A brief summary of the facts giving
rise to this case is that, on the 14th day of February, 2018,
Plaintiff invested an amount of GH¢80,034.05 with the Defendant at an interest
rate of 24.5% for a period of 91 days.&nbsp;
The Interest payable on the amount at the end of the 91 day period was
GH¢4,888.66 and the date of maturity for the investment was 16th May,
2018.<o:p></o:p>On the 16th day of May 2018
and at the end of the 91 day period, Plaintiff re-invested the principal sum of
GH¢80,034.05 and the interest of GH¢4,888.66 on the same terms and conditions
as the initial investment stated above.&nbsp; The
due date for the reinvested amount was the 16th day of August, 2018.<o:p></o:p>Plaintiff on the 7th day of
August, 2018 wrote to the Defendant giving them seven (7) days notice of his
intention to redeem his investment, that is, the principal amount and the
interest accrued to a total sum of GH¢84,922.71. Then, on the 16th
day of August, 2018, Plaintiff went to the office of Defendant to redeem his
investment but was informed by the Defendant to give it seven (7) days for
Defendant to pay Plaintiff the money in full. Plaintiff returned to the
Defendant’s office after seven (7) days only to be informed that the money was
not available.&nbsp; Despite several demands
by Plaintiff for his money, Defendant refused to pay the said money.<o:p></o:p>Plaintiff then wrote to the Defendant
through his lawyers on the 12th September, 2018, demanding that the
amount invested together with any interest accrued be paid back to him. The
failure of the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff his investment despite the assurance
to pay same in two instalments has brought the parties to Court.<o:p></o:p>Order 14 rule 1 of C.I. 47 provides:<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 on such a claim, or that
the Defendant has no defence to such a claim or part of claim, except as to the
amount of any damages.”<o:p></o:p>In the case of SANUNU v SALIFU [2009] SCGLR 586, it was held by the Supreme Court
that, under Order 14 rule 1 of C.I. 47, a trial Judge<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “must
come to a conclusion that on the face of the claim there is no defence to the
action. A defence set up need only to show that there is a triable issue: and
leave to defend ought to be given unless there is clearly no defence in law and
no possibility of a real defence on a question of fact.”<o:p></o:p>I have examined the pleadings filed by
the Defendant and I must say that, the Defendant do not deny the fact that the
Plaintiff invested in the Defendant company for which the total sum of the
investment is GH¢87,658.00 as at 2nd October, 2018. The only thing
that the Defendant in its statement of Defence stated is that, the Plaintiff
requested the Defendant to rollover his investment. However, it is observed
that an investment like the instant one can be cancelled at any time and if
such cancellation constitute a breach of the agreement between the parties, the
offending party may be sued for damages for breach of the agreement. In my
view, Exhibit ‘C’ which the Defendant wrote in response to the Plai</main>