PAUL QUAYE vs. MR. SAMUEL K. QUARTEY [2021]DLCA16213

Date	2021-05-20
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO:H1/56/2021
Citation No.	[2021]DLCA16213

SENYO DZAMEFE J. A. (PRESIDING)

NICHOLAS C. A. AGBEVOR J. A.

JENNIFER A. DODOO (MRS) J. A.

PATRICK JUSTICE ENNIM FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

FELIX NANA OSEI FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

[2021]DLCA16213
																																						<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" >PAUL QUAYE <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MR. SAMUEL K. QUARTEY <o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO:H1/56/2021&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE:
20TH MAY, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>PATRICK JUSTICE ENNIM FOR
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt;">

FELIX NANA OSEI FOR
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p>SENYO DZAMEFE J. A. (PRESIDING), NICHOLAS
C. A. AGBEVOR J. A., JENNIFER A. DODOO (MRS) J. A.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0in;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="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>&nbsp;DODOO,
JA (MRS)<o:p></o:p>Plaintiffs/Appellants (Appellants)
paid to the Defendant/Respondent (Respondent) an amount of $50,000.00 in
consideration for a lease of premises for 10 years commencing 1st
January, 2014.&nbsp; It was their case that
the Respondent was unable to give them vacant possession as he faced stiff
opposition from his siblings.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Respondent does not expressly deny
receiving the money and does not deny the failure to put the Appellants into
occupation of the leased premises.&nbsp; He
however stated that the Appellants’ demand for a refund of the rent already
paid amounted to an anticipatory breach of contract.&nbsp; He therefore made a counterclaim for damages
for breach of contract.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;At the close of pleadings, the
Appellants applied for summary judgment which has been denied.&nbsp; They have therefore appealed against the
denial of their application for Summary Judgment.&nbsp; The grounds of appeal are as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(a)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp; That the learned trial judge
misdirected herself and committed a grievous error of law when she dismissed
the Plaintiffs Application for Summary Judgment on the ground that the
Defendant’s Statement of Defence raises triable issues when in fact the
Statement of Defence does not raise any issue warranting a trial.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(b)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp; That the learned trial judge
misdirected herself on the law and occasioned a miscarriage of justice when she
failed to treat the Plaintiffs’ Claim as separate and distinct from the
Defendant’s Counterclaim and rather held that “going ahead to give judgment on
Plaintiffs’ Claim and proceeding to try the Counterclaim will not be the best
course of action even though a Counterclaim is a separate action.’<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(c)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp; Additional grounds of appeal will be
filed upon receipt of the record of appeal.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In
their written submissions, the Appellants argued that once the Respondent had
admitted receiving the amount of $50,000.00 and had also admitted his failure
to put the Appellants in possession, they were entitled to Summary
Judgment.&nbsp; They did not file any
additional grounds of appeal.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Respondent did not file any
submissions in answer to the instant appeal.&nbsp;
The Court is duty bound to evaluate the entire record, oral and
documentary in coming to a decision as to whether or not the judgment of the
trial court should be maintained or interfered with. i.e., with or without
submissions from the Respondent, this Court in its duty to rehear the matter
under Rule 8(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997, CI 19, must evaluate the
entire evidence on record to satisfy itself whether or not the judgment being
impugned is amply supported by the evidence on record.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Were
the Appellants entitled to Summary Judgment?<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Order
14 rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47) provides as
follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;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, o</main>