NAOS HOLDING INC vs. GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD [2010]DLSC2585

Date	2010-11-24
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/28/2009
Citation No.	[2010]DLSC2585

BROBBEY JSC (PRESIDING)

DOTSE JSC

YEBOAH JSC

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC

WILLIAM ADDO FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.

KIZITO BEYUO FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

[2010]DLSC2585
																																						<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" >NAOS HOLDING INC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, 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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/28/2009&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 24TH
NOVEMBER, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>WILLIAM
ADDO FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT.<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">

KIZITO BEYUO FOR THE
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <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">

BROBBEY
JSC (PRESIDING), DOTSE JSC, YEBOAH JSC, BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC, AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) &nbsp;JSC<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>DOTSE, JSC: <o:p></o:p>The facts leading to this case show a classic example of how time that
is lost, can never be regained. We cannot but agree more with George
Washington, in his letter to James Anderson, December 21st 1797,
when he wrote thus:-<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “The man who does not estimate time as money will forever miscalculate.”<o:p></o:p>In view of the many suits that had been previously filed by the
Appellants in this case, we deem it expedient to set out in some detail the
facts that have given rise to the instant appeal. In doing so, we consider it important
to set out in a historical context the antecedents of all the previous suits and
relate their relationship to the instant appeal.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiffs/appellants/appellants (hereinafter referred to as the
Appellants) in suit number OS 557/97 by originating summons in the High Court
claimed for a declaration that they were the holders in due course and entitled
to receive from the defendants/respondents/respondents (hereinafter referred to
as the Respondent) the full face value of five promissory notes issued by Sabat
Motors Limited and guaranteed by the Respondents. The Respondents objected to
the originating summons before the High Court and were overruled. However, their
appeal to the Court of Appeal was successful. The Appellants then issued a writ
of summons for the same relief as in the originating summons suit No. 465/99 on
21/5/1999. Gbadegbe J (as he then was) who presided over the case at the High
Court ruled that the Appellant’s endorsement in the writ was calculated to
avoid the payment of the appropriate filing fees. Instead of paying the
appropriate filing fees, the appellants discontinued suit No. 465/99, and
instead instituted a fresh action, suit No. 656/99. In suit No. C 656/99 the
appellants claimed the same&nbsp; reliefs as
in the suit No. 465/99.<o:p></o:p>The defendants entered conditional appearance and applied for an order
to strike out or stay the action on grounds that: <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The appellant did not exist as a
legal entity and therefore did not &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;have &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; capacity
to institute the action <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The plaintiff did not pay the
appropriate filing fees. <o:p></o:p>In addition, the Respondent applied for security for costs since the
Appellant company was not resident in Ghana. The writ was set aside as a
nullity by the trial judge, Agnes Dordzie J, (as she then was), since the
plaintiff failed to establish its existence as a legal entity.<o:p></o:p>Following the ruling of Agnes Dordzie J (as she then was) on 17th
April, 2000, the Appellants filed a new writ (Suit No. C 582/2000) on 15th
June, 2000, claiming the same reliefs as had been in Suit No. C 656/99. On 5th
July 2000 the Respondent bank entered conditional appearance and followed that
with Motion
on Notice to Strike out Suit or Stay proceedings and Security for Costs
which was filed on 23rd October 2000. Ten days after the filing of
the writ, which was on 25th June, 2000, the plaintiffs filed an
appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of the ruling of Justice Dordzie in
suit No. C 656/99. <o:p></o:p>The grounds of appeal in that appeal were:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The ruling is against the weight of
evidence available before the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Court<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</main>