MECHANICAL LLOYD LTD. vs. CROFT AND ANOTHER [1973]DLHC2328

Date	1973-10-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2328

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.

K. OHENE-AMPOFO FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

R. BANNERMAN FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1973]DLHC2328
																																						<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" >MECHANICAL LLOYD LTD. <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>CROFT AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&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;&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1973]
1 GLR 268<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
17 OCTOBER 1972.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

K. OHENE-AMPOFO FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

R. BANNERMAN FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.<o:p></o:p>In this
case the plaintiffs claim in tort against the defendants jointly and severally
damages for defamation. Nothing need be said at this stage about this claim.
The plaintiffs have however added claims to other reliefs which seem to me not
to be warranted by the pleadings, and also not to be reliefs which the court
can be called upon to grant. The reliefs sought are:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“(b) an
order by the court ordering the defendants to disclose their foreign investment
as capital at the time of registering their company in Ghana; <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(c) an
order by the court ordering the defendants to declare the total amount as
profits transferred out of Ghana as foreign exchange since the date of
registration and amounts still being held awaiting foreign cover for transfer; <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(d) an
order by the court compelling the defendants to declare whether they are
holding the agency franchises direct with the manufacturers or through another
agent Unimeck of London, or other agents and who receives the agency franchise
commission and what percentage and where the commission is paid; <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(e) an
order by the court compelling the defendants to declare whether these
manufacturers’ commissions have all been repatriated to Ghana.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There is
an allegation in the preceding pleading that the defendants and the plaintiffs
both hold agency agreements with Massey-Furgusson, and that they are
competitors in business. Trading and especially the business of manufacturer’s
representatives, agency for foreign firms and import-export are governed by
several statutory enactments including the Ghanaian Business Promotion Act,
1970 (Act 334), the Exchange Control Act, 1961 (Act 71), and the regulations
made thereunder. The objectives of these statutes vary, for example, the
Ghanaian Business Promotion Act, 1970, is meant to ensure that a sector of the economy
is reserved to Ghanaian entrepreneurs; other statutes such as the Exchange
Control Act, 1961, are meant to regulate the flow of foreign currency and
others are meant to ensure that competition in trade is fair. All are however
designed to secure and protect the national interest. Most of these statutes
provide penal sanctions for their breach. The question is whether quite apart
from these penal sanctions a person can claim relief from any one alleged to be
in breach of the statutes. Clearly to succeed in an action for damages, the
person should at least prove some interference to himself or to his propriety
trade or business. The plaintiffs in this case are not seeking damages for the
breach of any statute, and they therefore have not alleged any interference
with their business.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Can a
party seek other reliefs for example, an injunction to restrain breaches of
statute? Where a statute is enacted for the protection of a class of persons,
every member of that class has an interest in its enforcement and can claim to
restrain its breach, for example, where a statute sets up or regulates the
membership of a professional association, the practice of that profession by a
non-member or an unqualified person can be enjoined at the instance of any
member. It may very well be (I do not decide the point) that a non-Ghanaian or
any alien may be enjoined at the instance of any Ghanaian businessman or trader
in a civil suit from contravening the provisions of the Ghanaian Business
Promotion Act, 1970, on the ground that the Act is primarily meant to protect
Ghanaian businessmen. I do not decide the point because there are several other
issues to be considered before a sensible decision can be arrived at, for
example, ought the court to enjoin an alien bread baker at the instance </main>