CEMENTIA TRADING AG. vs. FORTRESS INVESTMENT GH. LTD. DILIP VASWANI [2012]DLHC5691

Date	2012-12-18
Suit No.	SUIT NO: OCC/50/12
Citation No.	[2012]DLHC5691

LORDSHIP JUSTICE TANKO AMADU (J.A)

[2012]DLHC5691
																																						<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" >CEMENTIA TRADING AG.<o:p></o:p>[PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT]<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>FORTRESS INVESTMENT GH. LTD. DILIP VASWANI<o:p></o:p>[2ND DEFENDANT/APPLICANT]<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>SUIT NO: OCC/50/12&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 18TH DECEMBER 2012<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>LORDSHIP
JUSTICE TANKO AMADU (J.A) SITTING AS ADDITIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGE&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>1.
It is provided under order 4 Rule 5 (2) of CI 47 as follows:<o:p></o:p>At
any stage of proceedings the court may on such terms as it thinks just either
of its motion or on application.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">"(a).
order any person who has been improperly or unnecessarily made a party or who
for any reason is no longer a party or a necessary party to cease to be a
party”<o:p></o:p>2. The
2nd Defendant/Applicant has invoked this provision and
seeks an order disjoining him as a party in this suit.<o:p></o:p>In
his affidavit in support, the 2nd Defendant/Applicant asserts that he was not a
party to any contract which gave rise to this suit but had at all material
times acted in the capacity of Chief Executive Officer of the 1st Defendant
company. He further asserts that the Plaintiff/Respondents endorsement of
reliefs reveal that it is the 1st<o:p></o:p>Defendant
and not himself who shall be liable to the relief sought if successful adding
that the Plaintiff/Respondents statement of claim does not disclose any
reasonable cause of action against him personally.<o:p></o:p>3. The
Plaintiff/Respondent has opposed the application and asserts
that the cause of action in this suit is in tort for damages
for unlawful conversion and wrongful removal of the
Plaintiff/Respondent's goods. It further asserts that while
admitting the fact that 1st Defendant is the contracting
party with respect to the intended contract of