THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) ACCRA EX PARTE; REPUBLIC BANK LIMITED [2014]DLSC2852

THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) ACCRA EX PARTE; REPUBLIC BANK... [2014]DLSC2852

Date	2014-12-17
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.J5/45/2014
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC2852

ATUGUBA JSC (PRESIDING)

AKUFFO (MS) JSC

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC

FUI TSIKATA (WITH HIM MS TAKYIWA EWOOL AND EDINAM COFIE) FOR THE APPLICANT.

NANIA OWUSU ANKOMA FOR THE 1ST INTERESTED PARTY.

NII OMAN BADOO (WITH HIM ALIDU MOHAMMED) FOR THE 2ND INTERESTED PARTY.

[2014]DLSC2852
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>HIGH COURT
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION)&nbsp;&nbsp; ACCRA<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE;
REPUBLIC BANK LIMITED<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.J5/45/2014&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 17TH DECEMBER, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>FUI
TSIKATA (WITH HIM MS TAKYIWA EWOOL AND EDINAM COFIE) FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>NANIA
OWUSU ANKOMA FOR THE 1ST INTERESTED PARTY.&nbsp; <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">

NII
OMAN BADOO (WITH HIM ALIDU MOHAMMED) FOR THE 2ND INTERESTED PARTY.<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">

ATUGUBA
JSC (PRESIDING), AKUFFO (MS) JSC, BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC, GBADEGBE JSC,AKOTO-BAMFO
(MRS) 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">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>ATUGUBA JSC:-<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The applicant moves this Court for:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “An order of certiorari directed to the
High Court, Commercial Division, &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; presided
over by His Lordship Justice Koomson to move into this Court for &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the purpose of being quashed the
ruling dated 23rd June 2014 in which it &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; assumed jurisdiction to entertain Suit No: BFS/144/14;<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An order of certiorari to quash the
order made by the High Court &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (Commercial
Division) in Suit No: BFS/144/14, on 23 June 2014 in which &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the High Court upheld a preliminary
objection by the Plaintiff/1st Interested &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Party herein, to the application by 1st
Defendant/Applicant herein to strike &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; out
the pleading of Plaintiff as disclosing no cause of action basing itself on the ground that the 1st
Defendant/Applicant herein had not entered &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; appearance;<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Consequent upon (1) and (2) above, an
order of prohibition restraining the &nbsp; said
High Court from proceeding with the hearing of the interlocutory &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; application and the suit;<o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Consequent upon (1) and (9) above,
orders setting aside the writ of &nbsp; summons,
striking out the suit and the application for interlocutory &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; injunction in the said suit;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ….Grounds for seeking this order:<o:p></o:p>a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The High Court lacked jurisdiction to
entertain the suit when Section 8 (c) of
the Securities Industry Law 1993 (PNDCL 333) required that any complaint,
dispute or violation arising under the law be submitted to the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Securities and Exchange Commission
before redress is sought in the &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; courts
 and the High Court acknowledged that this
prior step had not been taken &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; by the
Plaintiff.”<o:p></o:p>Several
grounds were argued for and against the application by both sides. However, we
propose to deal with what can be described as the principal ground in this
application, for the success or failure of that ground gravely affects the
other grounds argued.<o:p></o:p>The
principal ground for the application is ground (a) supra. <o:p></o:p>Section
8 (c) of the Security Industry Act, 1993 (PNDCL 333) provides thus:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “Section 8C—Submission of Complaint
and Examination of Issues.<o:p></o:p>