BARCLAYS BANK (GH) LTD vs. HELI ENTERPRISES (KOFI KROM CO LTD, THIRD PARTY) [2003]DLHC968

Date	2003-01-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2003]DLHC968

DORDZIE J

JESSIE JACINTHO FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

JAMES ABIADUKA FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[2003]DLHC968
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">BARCLAYS BANK (GH) LTD<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">HELI ENTERPRISES (KOFI KROM CO LTD, THIRD PARTY)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2003-2005]
1 GLR 24<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">Date:
28 January 2003<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JESSIE
JACINTHO FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">JAMES ABIADUKA FOR THE DEFENDANT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Dordzie J. <o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff herein instituted this action against the defendant, Heli
Enterprises, for the recovery of a liquidated sum of US$12,855.44 plus interest
at the prevailing lending bank rate from 10 October 2002 till the date of final
payment. <o:p></o:p>The
circumstances under which the debt arose was given by the plaintiff as follows:
The defendant on 7 August 2002 paid into its account a cheque with the face
value of US$15,717. The plaintiff-bank credited the defendant’s account with
the value of this cheque and on 15 August the defendant transferred the said
amount to its overseas suppliers. The plaintiff later reversed the entry of the
value of the cheque, ie $15,717 on the defendant’s account when they discovered
that the said cheque was dishonoured. The defendant admitted it benefited from
the dishonoured cheque and agreed to pay the debt; it made part-payments, the
balance due the plaintiff is what is indorsed on this writ. The defendant
submitted to judgment and judgment was entered for the plaintiff by this court
on 16 December 2002.<o:p></o:p>The
defendant subsequently issued a third party notice against Kofi Krom Trading Co
Ltd calling on it to indemnify the defendant in respect of the judgment debt;
in the alternative, the defendant claims against the third party $15,717 plus
interest from September 1993 to the date of final payment. The case for the
defendant as set out in the third party notice against Kofi Krom Co Ltd is
that, the cheque with its face value of $15,717 which the defendant paid into
the plaintiff-bank which resulted in the subject matter of this suit was issued
by the third party. The third party owed the defendant since 1993. It is in
satisfaction of the payment of the final amount due the defendant that the
third party issued the cheque in question. This cheque was dishonoured. The
third party therefore is liable to indemnify the defendant.<o:p></o:p>At
the direction stage counsel for the third party submitted that the third party
was wrongly brought into the suit. Counsel further submitted that the defendant
can only claim indemnity or contribution in a third party proceedings, but not
an alternative claim as contained in the third party notice. Counsel contend
that the right of indemnity only exists where there is an obligation either at
law or equity for one party to indemnify the other. He relied on the High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (LN 140A), Order 16, r 1. Such a right, according
to counsel, does not exist in this case. The third party owing the defendant
should be sued in a suit independent of the present suit. The third party
notice therefore must be dismissed.<o:p></o:p>In
reply counsel for the defendant submitted that their indebtedness to the
plaintiff arose as a result of the dud cheque the third party issued which the
plaintiff-bank credited the defendant with. Counsel for the defendant quoted
sections 72, 53 and 55 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1961 (Act 55) to support
his argument. He argued that under section 53 of Act 55 they have a right to be
indemnified by the third party who issued the cheque.<o:p></o:p></spa</main>