EDUSEI vs. DINERS CLUB SUISSE S.A. [1983]DLCA2119

Date	1983-03-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1983]DLCA2119

FRANCOIS JA

MENSA BOISON JA

ABBAN J.A

D. O. LAMPTEY FOR THE APPELLANT.

V. L. BUCKLE FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1983]DLCA2119
																																						<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" >EDUSEI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>DINERS CLUB SUISSE S.A. <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 809<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:
24 MARCH 1983<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">

D. O. LAMPTEY FOR THE APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

V. L. BUCKLE 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">

FRANCOIS, MENSA BOISON AND ABBAN JJ.A<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.A.<o:p></o:p>The
Diners Club of Switzerland is “a body corporate incorporated and organised
under the laws of Switzerland.” That is how the writ describes the plaintiffs;
and that description has not been controverted on the pleadings. The club
provides credit cards to its members, who according to its constitution, must
been of repute and of good financial standing. These cards enable their holders
to enjoy credit facilities in many parts of the world, thus obviating the
cumbersome necessity of carrying huge amounts of money about.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Mr Krobo
Edusei, the defendant-appellant, hereafter called the appellant, does not deny
enjoying these facilities as a member of the respondents’ association. Indeed,
a letter whose admissibility is pointlessly attacked in this appeal, demonstrates
beyond doubt that the appellant made full use of the facilities offered to the
tune of about 12,000 pounds sterling. It was his failure to meet the
corresponding obligation of a good member, that is, of satisfying his debt,
that he was sued.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The burden
of Mr Edusei’s complaint is that he had been wrongly sued in his person and in
this jurisdiction. First, he contends that he was introduced to the club by a
person who required his services, and was beholden to him. The arrangement was
that this third party should shoulder responsibility for any debts he, Edusei,
incurred; consequently liability should have been transferred to him. He urges
further that the contract should have been performed in Zurich, so the matter
was not justifiable by the courts in Ghana. These matters do not exhaust Mr
Edusei’ complaint. He sees a disparity between the claim and what the disputed
letter of his said he owed. In these circumstances, he urges that the procedure
afforded by Order 14 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N.
140A), for summary judgment on liquidated claims should not be available to the
respondents.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Again the
affidavit in support of the application, sworn to by a Ghanaian solicitor who
had no personal knowledge of the facts he attested thereto, he claims, is
incompetent and subversive of the well-established rule in Accra Furniture and
Rubber Foam Co., Ltd. v. Indart S.P./A. of Rome [1973] 2 G.L.R. 289, C.A. of
the need for personal knowledge. Finally he submits that the respondent company
not being registered in Ghana, or doing business here, cannot issue a valid
writ in Ghana.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Having
enjoyed on a lavish scale, the services extended by the club to its members “of
good financial standing,” these criticisms appear ill in the mouth of the
appellant; however, all the matters raised are given the consideration they
deserve in this judgment.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It must
be first noted, that the appellant failed to adopt the provisions of Order 16
of LN 140A to introduce into these proceedings the third party he claimed
should shoulder the liability. Neither did he make any real disclosures nor
produce unmistakable evidence that the liability of a third party was in issue.
On the contrary, the appellant’s signature as a member who had contracted to
pay his bills incurred on a non-transferable credit card, fixed him clearly and
primarily with liability. This judgment, however does not foreclose any
indemnity he may possess against any third party though it is but a small crumb
of comfort.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The issue
of jurisdiction was well thrashed out in the court below.<o:p></o:p>