MS LATIF MOMEN ENT. VRS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & ANOR. (C2/05/2024) [2024] GHAHC 401 (11 October 2024)

1 11/11/2024 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HELD AT NKAWKAW – EASTERN REGION ON MONDAY THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024: BEFORE HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE CYNTHIA MARTINSON (MRS) (J) _____________________________________________________________ SUIT NO. C2/05/2024 M/S LATIF MOMEM ENTERPRISE VERSUS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & ANOR PARTIES: Latif Momem represents Plaintiff/Applicant 1st Defendant/Respondent absent 2nd Defendant/Respondent represented by Abdul Basid LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Prince Obidiaba with him is Halim Benjamin S. M. for Plaintiff/Applicant Joachim Baazeng for the 2nd Defendant/Respondent present. BY COURT: RULING ON APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT I have read the motion filed by the Plaintiff/Applicant on the 28/5/2024. I have equally read the affidavit of Latif Momem. I have also heard both Counsel for the Applicant and the 2nd Defendant/Respondent in open court. Though there is no proof of service on the Application dated 28/5/2024 on the 2nd Respondent, Counsel for the 2nd Defendant/Respondent upon a court enquiry, told the court that he has been served with the Application dated 28/5/2024 since 15/04/2024. Presently, there is no motion on record challenging the jurisdiction of the court, as Counsel for the 2nd Respondent is alleging. I will therefore determine the merit of the Application for Summary Judgement on its merit. In the case of Sanunu vrs. Salifu (2009) SCGLR 586, the court did not mince words when it decided that in an application for Summary Judgement, the Applicant is to ensure that the Defendants or Respondents have all been 2 served with the Writ of Summons and have entered appearance. The Applicant should also ensure that he is convinced that the Respondents have no defence to the action and an averment to that effect should be deposed to it in the face of the affidavit. The court is also to ensure that the Respondents have no defence to the action, whether they have filed an affidavit in opposition or not before making a decision in the Application. I have thoroughly cross checked the processes before me. There is evidence of service of the Writ of Summons on both Respondents. Both Respondents have also entered appearance. There is evidence of service of the motion dated 28/5/2024 on the 1st Respondent. Counsel for the 2nd Respondent also tells the court that they have been served with the said Application dated 28/5/2024 since 15/October/2024. To date, I have not seen any affidavit in opposition from both Respondents in respect of the Application dated 28/5/2024. I have seen the averment deposed by the representative of the Applicant in paragraph 10 of the affidavit in support that, the Respondents have no defence to the action. I have also cross checked the annexures to the motion paper being evidence of debt owed by the 2nd Defendant Respondent to the Applicant herein. Per the annexures, I am convinced that this application is of merit and it so deserves the attention of the court. I hereby grant Reliefs 1 (a, b, c, d, e, f and g) and Relief 2 on the Applicant’s Writ, (as stated in the affidavit in support) for the Plaintiff/Applicant against the Defendants/Respondents. I will however allow cost of 5% on the amount in paragraph 1. (SGD.) JUSTICE CYNTHIA MARTINSON (MRS) HIGH COURT JUDGE