GEORGE KODUA vs. INTERBETON B.V. [2004]DLCA7036

Date	2004-11-26
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.: HI/53/2004
Citation No.	[2004]DLCA7036

ARYEETEY JA

QUAYE JA

ANIN-YEBOAH JA.

ADUAMA OSEI WITH E. OHENE GEORGETTE FRANCOIS FOR APPELLANT

GEORGE MENSAH WITH SAMUEL OPPONG FOR RESPONDENT

[2004]DLCA7036
																																						<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" >GEORGE KODUA<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>INTERBETON B.V.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL
APPEAL NO.: HI/53/2004&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; DATE: 26TH NOVEMBER, 2004<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

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

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">ADUAMA
OSEI WITH E. OHENE GEORGETTE FRANCOIS FOR APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">GEORGE
MENSAH WITH SAMUEL OPPONG FOR RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&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;&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>ARYEETEY
JA, QUAYE JA, ANIN-YEBOAH JA.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 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-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>ANIN
YEBOAH, JA <o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal from the High Court, Accra. The Plaintiff/Respondent (who shall
simply be referred to in this judgment as the Respondent) commenced an action
against the Defendant/Appellant (who shall simply be referred to as the
Appellants) for several reliefs which according to the Respondent emanated from
a contract in which the Respondent claimed was entitled to agency fees.<o:p></o:p>The
pleadings in this case was not closed when this appeal was filed. The facts of
this case are allegations of facts from the statement of claim filed on
31-1-2001 and several affidavits which parties filed together with some
exhibits. <o:p></o:p>The
Respondent alleged that he acted as agent for and on behalf of the Appellant to
promote activities leading to the signing of a contract for the construction of
Kumasi - Mampong -Ejura- Yeji road project which contract had been awarded to
the Appellant who was a foreign firm engaged by the government of Ghana to
undertake the project. According to the Respondent, the agency fee agreed upon
was two percent of the contract sum and it included variation orders,
compensation, and for cost and fees. According to the Respondent, all the
contractual obligations required to be performed by him were performed. It was
pleaded as part of his case that the Appellants paid for first and second
phases of the contract but declined to pay for the third phase and the refusal
to pay culminated in the action at the High Court and eventually this appeal.<o:p></o:p>Upon
service of the writ and statement of claim, the Appellants entered appearance
under protest and pursuant to that filed a Motion on Notice on 21/2/2001 to set
aside the writ of summons and statement of claim on the grounds that both of
them did not disclose any reasonable cause of action, lack of capacity on the
part of the Respondent and lastly prayed for the suit to be referred to
arbitration. Several grounds were canvassed in the supporting affidavits for
the reliefs prayed for in the motion. The learned trial judge on 26/4/2001
dismissed the application and held inter alia; that the writ and the statement
of claim disclosed reasonable cause of action. It appears from the ruling,
however, that even though the prayer for reference to arbitration was apparent
on the motion, same was not considered and ruled upon as expected by counsel
for the Appellants. On 3-5-2001, the Appellants filed another motion which
prayed for only one relief: reference of the matter to arbitration and stay of
proceedings. The trial judge on 28/5/2001 declined to stay proceedings and
refer the matter to arbitration on the grounds that: "it was not fair on
the part of the Respondent to travel to Geneva on arbitration."<o:p></o:p>On
15-6-2001 the Appellants lodged an appeal against the ruling of 28-5-2001,
which refused to stay proceedings. On the same 15-6-2001, the appellant lodged
another appeal which was against the orders made by the trial judge in respect
of interim orders preventing the payment of outstanding contract sums to the
Appellants. This court differently constituted on 25-3-2004 made an order consolidating
the two appeals for determination. I am inclined in this appeal to consider the
grounds dealing with the trial judge's refusal to stay proceedings and refer
the matter to an arbitration. Learned Counsel for the Appellant in his written
submissions has argued all the three grounds together.<o:p></o:p>The
basis of the prayer by the appellant for stay of proceeding and reference to an
arbitration was founded on Exhibit "JS1." This Exhibit
"JS1" is an Agency Agreement exhibited by he Appellants. This very
exhibit was also exhibited by the Respondent as exhibit GK '1.' This concludes
that both parties in my opinion are ad idem as to the Agency Agreement which
was executed by them as the basis of the contract between them. It is dated
1-6-94. Paragraph 9 thereof states as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;9. "In case of any dispute between the
parties, they will refer the matter to arbitration under I.C.C. Rules of
Arbitration, place of arbitration, Geneva, Switzerland, Swiss Law to
apply."<o:p></o:p>