RICHARD KORANTENG (PLAINTIFF) vs. UNISECURITIES GHANA LIMITED (DEFENDANT) [2019]DLHC7291

Date	2019-05-14
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/BDC/0109/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7291

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).

NANA YAA NARTEY FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

[2019]DLHC7291
																																						<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" >RICHARD KORANTENG<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>UNISECURITIES GHANA LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (GENERAL JURISDICTION ‘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. CM/BDC/0109/2019&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 14TH MAY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

NANA YAA NARTEY FOR 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">SUMMARY JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>This is an
application for Summary Judgement.&nbsp; I
have read the application and the supporting affidavit.&nbsp; It is noted that the Defendant did not file
any affidavit in opposition.&nbsp; Thoughtful
consideration has been given to Order 14 rule 1 of CI. 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 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>A summary of the facts of the case is that on the 28th
June, 2018 the Plaintiff invested an amount of gh¢1,665,350.66 in the Defendant
Company at the agreed rate of 30% per annum as interest and was given an
account number; 2041020002901 which
account is hosted at the office of the Defendant. By the said agreement the
Defendant was to pay a monthly amount of GH¢41,063.44 to the Plaintiff as
interest on the said investment.&nbsp; The
Defendant complied with the terms of the Agreement until October, 2018 when
Defendant defaulted in paying the accrued interest.&nbsp;&nbsp; All efforts by the Plaintiff to get the
Defendant to pay the accrued interest since October 2018 has proved futile.
This has brought the parties to Court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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>“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>