NATIONAL INVESTMENT BANK LTD vs AMOAH ENTERPRISE LIMITED, GEORGE DAMOAH AND EMMANUEL DAMOAH [2015]DLHC16228

NATIONAL INVESTMENT BANK LTD vs AMOAH ENTERPRISE LIMITED, GEORGE DAMOAH AND EMMA... [2015]DLHC16228

Date	2015-12-02
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BFS/218/2014
Citation No.	[2015]DLHC16228

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH (MRS.)

JACOB NOYE

L. S. N. AKWETEH

[2015]DLHC16228
																																						<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" >NATIONAL INVESTMENT BANK LTD.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>AMOAH ENTERPRISE LIMITED,
GEORGE DAMOAH AND EMMANUEL DAMOAH<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT OF JUSTICE (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Bookman Old Style&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">SUIT
NO. BFS/218/2014&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; 2ND DECEMBER
2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;tab-stops:9.0pt 42.55pt center 236.25pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">&nbsp;JACOB
NOYE FOR L. S. N. AKWETEH FOR DEFENDANT/ APPLICANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HER
LADYSHIP JUSTICE AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH (MRS.)<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" 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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>The applicants are asking this court to
strike out the pleadings in Plaintiff’/Respondent’s Statement of Claim and to
dismiss the action filed by Plaintiff on the 6th of August,
2014.&nbsp; They contend that this application
filed on the 19th of October, 2015 is brought under Order 18 r 1 (b)
and (d) and also under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the court.&nbsp; The grounds for the instant application are
set out in the Applicant’s affidavit in support.<o:p></o:p>Arguing in support of the motion,
learned counsel for the Applicant rested his submissions mainly on the grounds
that the action instituted in this court SUIT NO. BFS/218/14 (hereafter called
the Commercial Suit) is entirely the same as another action, SUIT NO. INDL /55/11
(hereafter called the “Fast Track Suit”) currently pending at the Fast Track
Division of this court in Accra.&nbsp;
According to counsel for the Applicants, the said suit involves the same
parties, concerns the same subject matter, with Plaintiff/Respondent seeking
the same reliefs therein as those being sought in the Commercial Suit before
this court.&nbsp; He submitted that the
institution of the Commercial Suit was therefore frivolous, vexatious and
constituted an abuse of the processes of this court for which reason the
pleadings in the Statement of Claim ought to be struck out and
Plaintiff/Respondent’s action consequently dismissed.<o:p></o:p>In challenging the propriety of the
Plaintiff/Respondent’s action, counsel submitted with reference to EXHIBIT B
attached to his affidavit in support that, in the Fast Track Suit, the
Plaintiff is the Association of Road Contractors otherwise known as ASROC
whereas the Plaintiff in the Commercial Suit is 1st Defendant/Counter
Claimant in that suit.&nbsp; The present
action ie the Commercial Suit has been brought against the 1st
Defendant/Applicant who happens to be a member of ASROC, Plaintiff in the Fast
Track Suit, he drew this court’s attention to paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of Exhibit
B to buttress his argument that the Commercial Suit concerns the same subject
matter being the contract entered into between the parties for the Supply of
Road Construction Equipment by Volvo.&nbsp;
This, he contended is borne out by paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim
under attack.&nbsp; Counsel further argued
that, as evidenced by Exhibit B, the Plaintiff herein as Defendant/Counter
Claimant in the Fast Track Suit has filed a counterclaim seeking inter alia “An
order for the recovery of the outstanding debts owed by the individual members
of the Plaintiff”, which relief in essence is identical to the reliefs
being sought in the Commercial Suit since the same seeks to recover monies
allegedly owed from the 1st Defendant who is a member of ASROC,
Plaintiff in the Fast Track Suit.&nbsp; In
response to paragraph 7 of the Respondents affidavit in opposition, counsel for
Applicants maintained that the Respondents claim that the Commercial Suit
included three (3) overdraft facilities which do not form part of the reliefs
claimed in the Fast Track Suit was untenable since all the said facilities
flowed from the same Construction Equipment
Supply Agreement, which, in any event were covered by the reliefs sought by
Plaintiff/Respondent as Defendant/Counterclaimant in that suit.<o:p></o:p>The Plaintiff/Respondent on his part
resists the instant application on the following grounds.<o:p></o:p>i)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That even though the 1st
Defendant in the Commercial Suit is one of Plaintiffs in the Fast Track Suit,
the parties in both suits are not the same because the instant suit includes 2nd
and 3rd Defendants, the guarantors of 1st Defendant’s
facility who are not parties to the Fast Track Suit.&nbsp; Likewise, though flowing from the same
subject matter, the reliefs being sought in the Commercial Suit include 3 other
facilities which were not included in Plaintiff/Respondent’s claim in the Fast
Track Suit.<o:p></main>