[2005]DLSC2410December 14, 2005Supreme Court

NAOS HOLDING INC. vs. GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK

The appellant commenced an action by writ on 13 July 1999 seeking a declaration that it was a holder in due course of five promissory notes dated 29 July 1996 issued by Sabat Motors Limited in favour of Eaglet Corporation and allegedly guaranteed by the respondent bank for payment at the Liberty House Branch of Ghana Commercial Bank. The respondent challenged the suit at the threshold, contending that the appellant had not shown that it existed as a legal entity recognized by law and had also failed to disclose its non-resident status and address as required by the rules of court. The appellant replied that it was a legal entity in its country of origin, Panama, and had appointed a resident attorney in Ghana to act on its behalf. Portion of judgment: “By a Writ of Summons issued on 13th July 1999, the Appellant herein commenced proceedings against the Respondent for a declaration that the Appellant is a holder in due course of certain promissory notes dated 29th July, 1996… The Respondent had guaranteed the due payment of the notes.” Also: “the plaintiff herein does not exist as a legal entity recognised with the capacity to sue…” and in response: “the plaintiffs are a legal entity in their country of origin…”

read more

AKUFFO (MS), J.S.C. BACKGROND FACTS: By a Writ of Summons issued on 13th July 1999, the Appellant herein commenced proceedings against the Respondent for a declaration that the Appellant is a holder in due course of certain promissory notes dated 29th July, 1996. According to the Statement of Claim attached to the Writ, Sabat Motors Limited had issued these promissory notes in favour of a corporate entity named Eaglet Corporation. Each of the notes (5 in all) were due and payable on 29th July 1997, at the Liberty House Branch of the Ghana Commercial Bank on account number D.4518. The Respondent had guaranteed the due payment of the notes. The Respondent entered conditional appearance and filed a motion to dismiss the suit or stay proceedings, under Order 3 Rules 4 and 7 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, and the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction. In the affidavit in support of the motion, the Respondent raised a number of issues, the more relevant of which, for the p.....