SAM JONAH vs. RICHMOND AGGREY & 2 ORS. [2010]DLCA6949

Date	2010-11-25
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.: HI/201/2010
Citation No.	[2010]DLCA6949

A. ASARE-KORANG J.A. (PRESIDING)

MARFUL-SAU J.A.

ADUAMA-OSEI J.A

MR.KIZITO BEYUO FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

MR.THADDEUS SORY (WITH HIM MRS. M. AMA OPOKU AMPONSAH MR. EGBERT FAIBILLE JNR

NANA SEKYIWA AND AMA ADDO-FENING) FOR THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS

[2010]DLCA6949
																																						<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" >SAM JONAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>RICHMOND AGGREY &amp; 2 ORS.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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">

<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">CIVIL
APPEAL NO.: HI/201/2010 &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: 25TH NOVEMBER, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.KIZITO
BEYUO FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>MR.THADDEUS
SORY (WITH HIM MRS. M. AMA OPOKU AMPONSAH, MR. EGBERT FAIBILLE, JNR, NANA
SEKYIWA AND AMA ADDO-FENING) FOR THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS<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">CORAM:<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">A.
ASARE-KORANG J.A. (PRESIDING), MARFUL-SAU J.A., ADUAMA-OSEI J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><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;mso-border-between:1.5pt solid windowtext;
mso-padding-between:1.0pt">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>ASARE
KORANG, J.A. :<o:p></o:p>This
appeal is against the ruling of the Commercial Division of the High Court,
Accra delivered on the 24th Day August, 2009, which dismissed the suit brought
by the plaintiff/appellant against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Respondents.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In the application for an order dismissing the
plaintiff/appellants suit brought under Order 11 rule 18(1) of the new High
Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004, (C.I. 47), the 2nd and 3rd
Defendants/Respondents alleged the following grounds:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“(i) Plaintiff’s suit discloses no reasonable
cause of action against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(ii) The suit brought against the 2nd and 3rd
Defendants is frivolous and vexatious.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(iii) 2nd and 3rd Defendants have been
improperly joined to the suit before this Honourable Court.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(iv) Plaintiff has no capacity to seek the
relief claimed by him (plaintiff) against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. <o:p></o:p>(v) 2nd and 3rd Defendants in terms of
plaintiff’s cause of action are immune to the suit before this Honourable
Court”. <o:p></o:p>In
this appeal, the plaintiff/appellant shall be referred to as the plaintiff and
the 2nd and 3rd Defendants/respondents as the 2nd and 3rd Defendants.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In the court below, the plaintiff’s writ was
endorsed for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“(a) a declaration that the plaintiff is the
beneficial owner of 25 percent of 20 percent of shares held by the 1st
Defendant in Scancom Ghana Ltd;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(b) A declaration that under and by virtue of
the share Sale Agreement and the Support Agreement, the sum of US $54 Million
received under the settlement is charged with the plaintiff’s interest being 25
percent thereof and the various amounts advanced by the Plaintiff to the 1st
Defendant and such compensation as this court may determine as compensation to
the plaintiff for the Settlement in breach of the Support Agreement; <o:p></o:p>(c) recovery of the sum of US $13.5
Million representing plaintiff’s shares held by the 1st Defendant or such sums
as the court may consider appropriate. <o:p></o:p>(d) recovery of the loan; in the sum
of US $1 million at LIBOR + 5% interest from 24th April 2009 to the date of
payment. <o:p></o:p>(e) damages for breach of the Support
Agreement, <o:p></o:p>(f) An order of the court pursuant to
Section 39 of the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32) that the 2nd and 3rd
Defendants deliver to the plaintiff and the 1st Defendant their bill for
professional services rendered”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Before the commencement of the action in the
court below, the plaintiff filed application ex parte for leave to issue and
serve notice of a writ of summons on the 1st Defendant (who is not a party to
this appeal) out of the jurisdiction, the ground for the application being that
the 1st Defendant, a business person was resident in Peachtree City, Atlanta,
Georgia in the United States of America. <o:p></o:p>The
application was granted and the plaintiff proceeded to issue a Writ of Summons
and Statement of Claim against the 1st Defendant and the 2nd and 3rd defendants
j</main>