LARTEY AND LARTEY LTD. vs. BEANY AND ANOTHER [1980]DLHC783

Date	1980-08-15
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLHC783

CECILIA KORANTENG-ADDOW J.

C. B. K. ZWENNES FOR THE APPLICANTS.

E. A. ACCAM FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1980]DLHC783
																																						<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" >LARTEY AND LARTEY LTD. <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>BEANY AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA.]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] 1 GLR 590<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE
15 AUGUST 1980<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">

C. B. K. ZWENNES FOR THE APPLICANTS. <o:p></o:p>

E. A. ACCAM FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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">

CECILIA KORANTENG-ADDOW J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF CECILIA KORANTENG-ADDOW
J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application under Order 25, r. 4 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules
1954 (L.N. 140A) and the inherent jurisdiction of the court:<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">“praying
for an order that all further proceedings in this action be stayed and that the
action be dismissed on the grounds of res judicata, and [on the ground] that
the [action] is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court.”<o:p></o:p>The
reliefs sought are as follows:<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">“(a) a
declaration that Sweaters and Socks Factory Ltd. belongs and shall remain the
property of Lartey and Lartey Ltd., the Gaisie Committee of 4 September 1975
and subsequent judgments/orders of the High Court dated 6 May 1976 and in suit
No.67/78 dated 22 February 1978 being void ab initio, as the special tribunal in
its ruling of 23 May 1980 held that the Gaisie Committee lacked jurisdiction to
investigate Sweaters and Socks Factory Ltd.; <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)
recovery of possession of Sweaters and Socks Factory Ltd., from the second
defendants;<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">&nbsp;(c) an order for an account; and <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)
perpetual injunction against the defendants, their servants or agents or
workmen from having anything to do with Sweaters and Socks Factory Ltd.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>From the
statement of claim, affidavits filed on both sides and documents exhibited to
the application, the circumstances which culminated in this action may be
stated as follows: The first defendant is a Lebanese resident in Ghana, but now
naturalised. He was a shareholder and managing director of Sweaters and Socks
Factory Ltd. Some time in 1973, the plaintiffs (Lartey and Lartey Ltd.) agreed
with the owners of Sweaters and Socks Factory Ltd. to purchase the factory of
Sweaters and Socks. The plaintiffs applied for a loan from the National
Investment Bank to enable them to pay the purchase price. This application was
transmitted to the bank by the National Redemption Council.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
time Mr. Daniel Lartey, owner of Lartey and Lartey Ltd., was a friend of the
then Head of State, Colonel I. K. Acheampong (as he then was) and he Mr. Lartey
was working at the Castle. Consequently the application was highly recommended
by the government. In June 1974 the loan agreement was approved. The purported
sale agreement was executed in July 1974. At the request of Lartey and Lartey
Ltd. the loan of ¢580,000 was disbursed by the National Investment Bank to
Barclays Banks of Ghana<o:p></o:p>Ltd.,
Knutsford Avenue Branch, for the account of Sweaters and Socks Factory Ltd. in
exchange for all the title deeds and documents on the property of Sweaters and
Socks Factory Ltd. which were then in the custody of Barclays Bank as
mortgagees. After the disbursement, it was discovered by the parties that the
sale offended against the provisions of the Assets and Bank Accounts Decree,
1972 (N.R.C.D. 8).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>