GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD vs. NAOS HOLDINGS LTD [1999]DLCA282

Date	1999-05-13
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1999]DLCA282

FORSTER JA

AFREH JA

BENIN JA

S K B ASANTE & ASSOCIATES FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

AMARTEIFIO & CO FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

[1999]DLCA282
																																						<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" ><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">GHANA
COMMERCIAL BANK LTD<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">vs.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom: 12pt; text-align: center; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">NAOS HOLDINGS LTD<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; text-align: center; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[COURT OF
APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom: 1.5pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">

</div>COUNSEL:
<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom: 1.5pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: none; padding: 0in;">S K B ASANTE &amp; ASSOCIATES FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: none; padding: 0in;">AMARTEIFIO &amp; CO FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom: 1.5pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 0in 1pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: none; padding: 0in;">FORSTER, BENIN AND AFREH JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">BENIN JA.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The question raised in the court
below was whether the originating process adopted by the plaintiffs in seeking
redress of a grievance it had against the defendants was appropriate. The
plaintiffs claimed to be the holders in due course of five promissory notes
issued by the defendants in favour of a company called Sabat Motors to the
order of Eaglet Corporation Ltd. The plaintiffs’ came into the picture
apparently because Eaglet Corporation indorsed the promissory notes in their
favour, but which were dishonoured by the defendants upon presentation for
payment on the due date. The plaintiffs went to the High Court by way of an
originating summons seeking what happens to be the court’s construction of
these instruments as to whether by them they were entitled to payment with
interest at the current bank rate.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The defendants filed an application
to strike out this originating process on the grounds that there are several
facts in dispute which make the process adopted “irregular, improper and
constitutes an abuse of the process of the court . . .” The facts alleged to be
in dispute were set out in the affidavit in support of the application to which
I shall make reference very shortly.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The plaintiffs opposed the
application on the ground that they only sought the court’s construction of the
documents and to determine the rights of the plaintiffs in relation to the said
documents. The plaintiffs also provided rebuttal documentary evidence by way of
affidavit annexures.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 5pt; text-align: justify; line-height: 115%; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">