HULL BLYTH (GH) LTD AND WILHELMSEN LINES OF NORWAY vs. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI LTD AND ATLAS MANUFACTURING & ENGINEERING (GH) LIMITED [2010]DLHC4183

HULL BLYTH (GH) LTD AND WILHELMSEN LINES OF NORWAY vs. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI LTD AND... [2010]DLHC4183

Date	2010-10-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO. 1118/99
Citation No.	[2010]DLHC4183

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE P. BRIGHT MENSAH

MR ADDAE ABOAGYE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS AND CO-PLAINTIFFS

MR KWAME ADOBOR FOR TETTEH & CO. FOR THE DEFENDANTS

[2010]DLHC4183
																																						<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" >HULL BLYTH (GH) LTD AND
WILHELMSEN LINES OF NORWAY<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI LTD
AND ATLAS MANUFACTURING &amp; ENGINEERING (GH) LIMITED<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, (FINANCIAL DIVISION ONE), 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">

SUIT NO. 1118/99&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: 28TH OCTOBER, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR
ADDAE ABOAGYE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS AND CO-PLAINTIFFS<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">

MR
KWAME ADOBOR FOR TETTEH &amp; CO. FOR THE DEFENDANTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE P. BRIGHT MENSAH<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="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>Pursuant
to an order of this court of 11th March, 2010 the Plaintiffs and the
Co-Plaintiffs amended their writ and claimed against the defendants as per the
endorsement on the Amended Writ of Summons as follows:-<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An order for the recovery of the sum of
US$595,836.79 less US$88,039.12 paid by the defendant and received by the
Co-Plaintiff for the value of the containers plus interest being the
outstanding demurrage charges due and payable as at the date 15th February,
1999 when the containers were declared lost by the Co-Plaintiff in accordance
with the custom in the shipping industry.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Interest on the amount claimed in (a) with
effect from the 15th day of February, 1999 at the rate of 4% per annum until
the date of judgment.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Costs.<o:p></o:p>The
defendants were equally granted leave of the court to amend their Statement of
Defence.&nbsp; Consequent to that order the
defendants counterclaimed against the Plaintiffs and the Co-Plaintiffs as
follows:-<o:p></o:p>i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A declaration that the sum of US$88,039.12
paid by the defendant and received by the Plaintiffs was payment as condition
for the grant of stay of execution of High Court judgment by the Court of
Appeal.<o:p></o:p>ii)&nbsp;&nbsp; Recovery of the sum of US$85,119.12 and
US$2,920 paid by the Defendant into court on 2 February, 2005 and 28 February,
2005 respectively and paid over to the Plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p>iii)
&nbsp;Interest on (ii) above from the dates of
payment supra till date of final payment.<o:p></o:p>ISSUES:<o:p></o:p>The
Statement of Defence and Counterclaim raised the following Issues for
determination by the court:<o:p></o:p>a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the containers described in
the Amended Statement of Claim were delivered to the defendants.<o:p></o:p>b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the containers were covered
by waybills.<o:p></o:p>c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the Co-Plaintiff is entitled
to its claim.<o:p></o:p>d)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Any other issues arising reasonably from
the pleadings.<o:p></o:p>Additional
Issues filed by the defendants:<o:p></o:p>1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the Plaintiff has a cause of
action against the defendant.<o:p></o:p>2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the containers numbered 26.<o:p></o:p>3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the defendant as a party to
the bailment agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff
regarding the alleged containers.<o:p></o:p>4)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the action is statute
barred.<o:p></o:p>I
shall first consider Additional Issues 1 and 4 ie whether the Plaintiff has a
cause of action against the defendant and whether this instant action is statue
barred, before proceeding to decide whether it is worthwhile considering the
rest of the issues.&nbsp; Insofar as these 2
issues raise that fundamental question as to whether this action ought to have
gone to trial in the first place, it is imperative for the court to address
them in the context of the law.&nbsp; For the
law is that if a party brought an action in a capacity he did not have, the
writ is a nullity and so are the proceedings and the judgment founded on
it.&nbsp; Any challenge to capacity puts the
validity of the writ in issue.&nbsp; See: R v
HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EXPARTE ARYEETEY (2003-2004) 1 SCGLR 398.<o:p></o:p>It
was averred in paragraph 4 of the Amended Statement of Defence filed on
26/03/10 that the Plaintiff had no proprietary interest in the containers in
issue, having sued as<o:p></o:p>agents
of the Co-plaintiffs.&nbsp; Therefore they did
not have a cause of action against the defe</main>