The Courts – quite rightly - never tire of pointing out that the drastic consequences of a summary judgment order and that the natural corollary to this is that such an order will only be given if the Court can be persuaded on the evidence before it that plaintiff has what has sometimes been referred to as an unanswerable case.
 The applicant, whom I shall refer to as the plaintiff, sought summary judgment on the simple basis that the respondent, whom I shall refer to as the defendant, had in 2003 illegally and fraudulently misappropriated from the plaintiff an amount of US$140,685.00. The plaintiff’s supporting affidavit consists of three paragraphs; of the three paragraphs only one paragraph, which contains five paltry lines, provides the basis of the applicant’s cause of action. In the material part, this paragraph says simply that the “defendant/respondent” “is thus truly and lawfully indebted to the applicant/plaintiff in the amount of US$140,685.00 …”
 The defendant opposed the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment and filed an affidavit in which, after denying the defendant’s averments that she was defending the action solely for purposes of delay and that she had no bona fide defence to the plaintiff’s claim, proceeded to state the defence whereby she proposed to answer the plaintiff’s claim.
 The response of Mr. Vaatz, counsel for the plaintiff, was that the plaintiff’s claim was not based on “a liquid document” (Rule 32 (1) (a)); it was a claim for “a liquidated amount of money” (Rule 32 (1) (b)). I respectfully agree with Mr. Vaatz; nowhere on the papers does the plaintiff contend that its claim is based on a liquid document: on the evidence, the plaintiff’s claim is for a liquidated amount in money.
 In Commercial Bank of Namibia Ltd v Trans Continental Trading, Hannah, J approved the test applied by Howard, J in Leymac Distributors Ltd v Hoosen and another to ascertain whether a money claim is “liquidated” within the meaning of Rule 32 (1) (b). The test is that “a claim cannot be regarded as one for ‘a liquidated amount in money’ unless it is based on an obligation to pay an agreed sum of money or is so expressed that the ascertainment of the amount is a mere matter of calculation.”
 Having applied the test to the facts of the present case, I am satisfied that the plaintiff’s claim passes the test: the liquidated amount in money is the calculated amount of US$140,685.00 that the plaintiff alleged were illegally and fraudulently misappropriated by the defendant from the plaintiff for the defendant’s own benefit. And it has been held that a claim for a specific amount of money wrongfully and unlawfully misappropriated by the defendant from the plaintiff is liquidated within the meaning of Rule 32. In the result, with the greatest respect, Mr. Murorua’s contentions fall to be rejected. But that is not the end of the matter.