DR. MARTINSON ASIEDU ANSAH & ANOR vs. CLEMENT EDEM AGBENYO & ANOR [2022]DLHC11444

Date	2022-03-08
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BDC/0842/2020
Citation No.	[2022]DLHC11444

HIS LORDSHIP FRANCIS OBIRI ‘J’.

SUSALEE ASAA ASARE FOR PATRICK AMATEY SOGBODJOR FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS

JOYCELYN FRIMPOMAA MARFO FOR JOHN DARKO FOR THE DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

[2022]DLHC11444
																																						<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" >DR.
MARTINSON ASIEDU ANSAH &amp; ANOR<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CLEMENT EDEM
AGBENYO &amp; ANOR<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, 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: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:150%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. BDC/0842/2020&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 8TH MARCH, 2022<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>SUSALEE ASAA ASARE FOR PATRICK AMATEY SOGBODJOR FOR
PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS<o:p></o:p>JOYCELYN FRIMPOMAA MARFO FOR JOHN DARKO FOR THE<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: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:108.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-108.0pt;
line-height:150%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP FRANCIS OBIRI ‘J’.<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 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:150%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;On 11th May,
2021, the Plaintiffs/Applicants (hereinafter called the Applicants) filed a
motion on notice for summary judgment under Order 14 of C.I. 47.<o:p></o:p>The Applicants per their
motion paper are praying the Court for summary judgment against the
Defendants/Respondents (hereinafter called the Respondents) on the grounds,
that the Respondents have no defence to the action.&nbsp; The Applicants supported their motion with
affidavits and exhibits.<o:p></o:p>The Respondents resisted
the application by filing affidavit in opposition.&nbsp; They prayed the Court to dismiss the
application because, they have defence to the Plaintiffs action.<o:p></o:p>Counsel for both parties’
filed their respective legal submissions for and against the application.&nbsp; It is now my duty to make a determination one
way or the order in this application.<o:p></o:p>The purpose of summary
judgment under Order 14 of C.I. 47 is to allow a Plaintiff to obtain judgment
summarily without necessarily going through trial, in a situation where the
Defendant is not able to set up any bonafide defence.<o:p></o:p>Again, in summary
judgment, the Plaintiff claim should be clear on the face of it.&nbsp; The Defendant should have been served with
the Plaintiff’s writ, entered appearance and filed a defence.&nbsp; Also, the Plaintiff claim should be clear and
unimpeachable.<o:p></o:p>See: YARTEL BOAT BUILDING CO. v ANNAN (1991) 2 GLR 11<o:p></o:p>ATLANTA TIMBER CO. v VICTORIA TIMBER CO. LTD (1962) 1
GLR 221<o:p></o:p>SANUNU v SALIFU (2009) SCGLR 586<o:p></o:p>This means, in a situation
where the Defendant is not able to set up a good defence, then the Court may
grant summary judgment.&nbsp; The Court may come
to this conclusion by examining the Respondent or Defendant’s defence or
pleadings to determine whether there are triable issues for determination.<o:p></o:p>See: BALLAST NEDAM GHANA BV. v HORIZON MARINE
CONSTRUCTION (2010) SCGLR 435 <o:p></o:p>SADHWANI v AL-HASSAN (1999-2000) 1 GLR 19 CA<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;DUNCAN v
KAWOACO LTD (1981) GLR 476<o:p></o:p>Therefore, a Court cannot
grant summary judgment if the Defendant’s defence discloses triable issues. See: YIRENKYI v TORMEKPEY (1987-88) 1 GLR 533 CA<o:p></o:p>