GRESS PANARIA PORTUGAL S. A. (PLAINTIFF) vs. SAMODA INVESTMENT CO. LTD & ANOR. (DEFENDANTS) [2019]DLHC7168

GRESS PANARIA PORTUGAL S. A. (PLAINTIFF) vs. SAMODA INVESTMENT CO. LTD & ANOR. (... [2019]DLHC7168

Date	2019-02-07
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/RPC/0262/2018
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7168

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON ‘J’.

GODWIN MENSAH SACKEY FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

KWABLA SENANU FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

[2019]DLHC7168
																																						<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" >GRESS PANARIA PORTUGAL S. A.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SAMODA INVESTMENT CO. LTD &amp; ANOR.<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/0262/2018&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; &nbsp;DATE:
7TH FEBRUARY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>GODWIN MENSAH SACKEY 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">

KWABLA
SENANU FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS<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 Judgment. I have read the application and the
affidavits filed both parties in support and in opposition to its grant.&nbsp; I have also read the written submissions
filed by both Counsel.&nbsp; Regard has also
been given to Order 14 rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004
C.I. 47 which provides that:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Supreme Court in the case of SAM-JONAH v
DUODU-KUMI [2003-2004] SCGLR 50 elaborating
on the objective of Order 14 rule (1) of C.I. 47 stated: <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“The
objective of Order 14 is to facilitate the early conclusion of actions where it
is clear from the pleadings that the Defendant therein has no cogent
defence.&nbsp; It is intended to prevent a
Plaintiff being delayed where there is no fairly arguable defence to be brought
forward. “(see Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, 516) what we are,
therefore, required to do in this appeal is to ascertain whether, on the
totality of the pleadings and all matters before the High Court at the moment
it delivered the Summary Judgment, the Respondent had demonstrably any defence
in law or on the available facts, such as would justify his being granted leave
to defend the Appellant’s claim.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In a
later decision in the case of SANUNU v
SALIFU [2009] SCGLR 586, the Supreme Court held that under Order 14 rule 1
of C.I. 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 defend 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>In
the instant case, the Defendants in their statement of defence have raised
issues like the lack of capacity of the Plaintiff to bring the instant
action.&nbsp; Again, issues of fraud has been
raised in the defence put up by the Defendants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
my view, the pleadings filed by the Defendants raises triable issues and as
stated by their Lordships in the case of SANUNU
v SALIFU (supra) that “a defence set
up need only show that there is a triable issue”, then, in such
circumstances leave ought to be given unless there is no defence in Law.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It
is observed that the Defendants having raised a very important issue, that is,
the lack of capacity on the part of the Plaintiff to bring the action.&nbsp; The general rule which is that where the
capacity of a person to bring an action is challenged, he has to establish </main>