|
Practitioners are now very much
aware that Order 14 of the High
Court (Civil Procedure) Rules,
1954 (L.N. 140A), dealing with
application for leave to sign
summary judgment, has been swept
away and substituted by a new
Order 14, as set out in the
Schedule to the High Court (Civil
Procedure) (Amendment) (No. 2)
Rules, 1977 (L.I. 1129). What is
the true import and effect of the
new Order 14? In refusing an
application for summary judgment
brought under the new Order 14 in
an action for recovery of
possession of farm land, Wuaku J.
in Bronya v. Asafo II, High Court,
Cape Coast, 27 June 1979 (to be
reported in [1980] G.L.R.) held
that the applicant must not only
swear an affidavit as was done in
the instant case, but must also
conform with Order 14, r. 2 (1)
and either set out clearly the
reliefs sought in the summons or
attach thereto a statement of
claim setting out the reliefs and
the facts upon which the claim was
based. The applicant must also
depose that in his belief the
defendant has no defence to the
claim. His lordship also held that
even though the new Order 14 did
not require the deponent to be a
person who could swear positively
to the facts, the deponent must
show some personal knowledge of
facts sworn to. It was therefore
held that since the deponent in
that case had no personal
knowledge of the facts, she could
not depose to an affidavit as was
contemplated by the new Order 14,
r. 2 (1) and (2). In so holding,
the court relied on the case of
Accra Furniture and Rubber Foam
Co., Ltd. v. Indart S.P./A. of
Rome1, a decision of the Court of
Appeal based on the old Order 14,
r. 1 of L.N. 140A.
FOOTNOTE
1
[1973] 2 G.L.R. 289, C.A. |
