PAPER AIR-PLANE TRADE AND KIM SANG KYU vs. DEFCO INVESTMENT LTD AND STEPHEN KORANKYE [2010]DLHC4193

PAPER AIR-PLANE TRADE AND KIM SANG KYU vs. DEFCO INVESTMENT LTD AND STEPHEN KORA... [2010]DLHC4193

Date	2010-07-15
Suit No.	SUIT NO.FTR 27/10
Citation No.	[2010]DLHC4193

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE P. BRIGHT MENSAH

ANDY APPIAH-KUBI FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

K. ADJEI LARTEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS

[2010]DLHC4193
																																						<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" >PAPER AIR-PLANE TRADE
AND KIM SANG KYU<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DEFCO INVESTMENT LTD AND
STEPHEN KORANKYE<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.FTR 27/10&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 15TH JULY, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ANDY
APPIAH-KUBI FOR THE 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">

K.
ADJEI LARTEY 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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>On
the 2nd day of March, 2010 the Plaintiffs caused to be issued out of this
registry, a writ of summons endorsed with the reliefs listed here below:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Recovery of the sum of US$112,000 being
the outstanding indebtedness of the defendants under the sale/purchase contract
for the supply of gold executed between the parties.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Interest on the said sum from 24th November,
2009 at the prevailing commercial bank rate to the date of final payment.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Cost of airfare to Ghana for the purposes
of retrieving the said indebtedness.<o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Cost.<o:p></o:p>The
defendants did enter appearance and filed a late Statement of Defence to the
Plaintiffs’ claim.<o:p></o:p>At
the close of the pleadings, the Issues which were set down for hearing were as
follows:-<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not this Honourable Court has
jurisdiction to trial (sic) &nbsp;this matter
in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Ghana.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not such jurisdiction, if any,
is affected by the provision under clause 15 of the Distribution Contract
between<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the Plaintiffs have been
discharged from the distribution contract for the failure of consideration on
the part of the defendants.<o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the Plaintiffs are entitled
to their claim in the sum of US$112,000.00 being the outstanding indebtedness
of the defendants under the Distribution Contract.<o:p></o:p>5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not Plaintiffs are entitled to
the refund to interest on the sum of US$112,000.00 owing and accrued as at 24th
day of November, 2009.<o:p></o:p>6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not Plaintiffs are entitled to
the refund of cost of airfare from South Korea to Ghana for the purpose of
prosecuting this matter.<o:p></o:p>7.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Any other issue arising on the pleadings.<o:p></o:p>It
recalls that at the Application for Directions stage it was agreed by both
Counsel and it was approved by the Court that Issues 1 – 3 as set out in the
Application for Directions be set down for legal arguments.<o:p></o:p>SUBMISSIONS
OF COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFFS<o:p></o:p>It
is the contention of the Plaintiffs’ Counsel that regardless of Clause 15
contained in the Distribution Contract which is to the effect that any dispute
with respect to the agreement between the parties shall be governed by and
interpreted in accordance with the law of the Republic of Korea, this court has
jurisdiction to entertain this matter.<o:p></o:p>In
arguing in support of this contention learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs, Mr
Andy Appiah Kubi referred the court to Order 33 r 1 of CI 47 and S 38 of the
Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459).&nbsp;
Additionally, he referred to THE ELEFTHERIA (1962) 2 All ER 641 and
submitted that the court is not bound to stay proceedings and refer the matter
to a foreign court but to take into account circumstances such as in which
country the evidence of the parties is situated or more readily available and
the effect of the relative convenience in the expense of trial as between the courts
and the foreign court.&nbsp; In his view one
matter of dominant significance is that nearly all the evidence relating to
this case is found in Ghana.&nbsp; The
contract was executed in Ghana to be performed in Ghana.&nbsp; Both defendants are Ghanaian entity and Ghanaian
citizen respectively, he added.&nbsp;
According to Counsel, the defendants have not shown any good faith in
performing their side of the contract.&nbsp;
They are also not genuinely seeking the trial in a foreign country
because, according to Counsel, the defendants live in and are connected to
Ghana so if the Plaintiffs took action in Korea and had judgment it would be
difficult to enforce the judgment in Ghana.&nbsp;
He submitted further that Korea is not one of the countries whose
foreign judgments can be enforced in Ghana.<o:p></o:p>Giving
the brief facts of the case Counsel stated that the parties entered into an
agreement to do gold business.&nbsp;&nbsp; Pursuant
to</main>