UNITED STEEL COMPANY LIMITED (PLAINTIFF) vs. WAPIC INSURANCE GHANA LIMITED (DEFENDANT) [2019]DLHC7180

UNITED STEEL COMPANY LIMITED (PLAINTIFF) vs. WAPIC INSURANCE GHANA LIMITED (DEFE... [2019]DLHC7180

Date	2019-02-26
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/BDC/0528/2018
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7180

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON ‘J’.

DAVID KUDOADZI FOR PLAINTIFF

GEORGE MIGUEL OWUSU ANSAH FOR MARGARET OWUSU FOR DEFENDANT

[2019]DLHC7180
																																						<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" >UNITED STEEL
COMPANY LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>WAPIC
INSURANCE GHANA 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. CM/BDC/0528/2018&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;DATE: 26TH FEBRUARY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>DAVID
KUDOADZI 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">

GEORGE MIGUEL OWUSU ANSAH
FOR MARGARET OWUSU FOR DEFENDANT <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 by the parties.
I have also read the written submissions filed by both Counsel. Regard has been
given to Order 14 rule 1 (1) of C.I. 47.&nbsp;
Consideration has also been given to the principles governing the grant
of applications of this nature.<o:p></o:p>The Supreme Court in the case of SANUNU v SALIFU [2009] SCGLR 586 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 a question of fact.<o:p></o:p>In the instant case, it is noted that
the Defendant has settled the principal sum the subject matter of the
claim.&nbsp; The only outstanding issue which
needs to be determined is whether or not the Plaintiff should be entitled to
the interest it claims.&nbsp; It would appear
that this is a straight forward matter which, in my view, could have entitled
the Plaintiff to Summary Judgment. However, the date for the commencement of
the calculation of interest has become a bone of contention between the
parties.&nbsp; It is the case of the Plaintiff
that interest should be calculated from January 2018.&nbsp; The Defendant on the other hand contents the
interest and further contends that any interest calculable should start in May
2018 in view of the decision of the National Insurance Commission in extending
the date of payment of the principal sum.<o:p></o:p>The question as to whether or not
interest should be calculated from January 2018 or May 2018 is a question of
fact which the Court will have to examine the pieces of evidence that the
parties shall adduce in the case so as to come to a definite conclusion
regarding when interest is to start.&nbsp;
This is a triable issue, and as the Supreme Court decided in the SANUNU v SALIFU case (Supra), in such
situations leave ought to be given to the Defendant to defend the case.<o:p></o:p>For this reason, I refuse to grant the
application for Summary Judgment.&nbsp; The
application is accordingly dismissed.<o:p></o:p>&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; <o:p></o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>