THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT ACCRA EX PARTE; REPUBLIC BANK LIMITED (APPLICANT), HFC BANK LIMITED AND SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [2014]DLSC4673

THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT ACCRA EX PARTE; REPUBLIC BANK LIMITED (APPLICANT),... [2014]DLSC4673

Date	2014-12-17
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION No.: JS/45/2014
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC4673

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]DLSC4673
																																						<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) ACCRA<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE; REPUBLIC
BANK LIMITED (APPLICANT), HFC BANK LIMITED AND
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (INTERESTED PARTIES)<o:p></o:p>[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">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL
MOTION No.: JS/45/2014&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; 17TH
DECEMBER 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<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>ATUGUBA
JSC (PRESIDING), AKUFFO (MS) JSC, BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC, GBADEGBE JSC, AKOTO-BAMFO
(MRS) JSC<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="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="text-align:center;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>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 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; complaint, dispute or violation
arising under the law be submitted to the &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><</main>