SINAPI ABA SAVINGS & LOANS LTD. vs. DUBAPHARMA CO. LIMITED & 2 ORS. [2015]DLHC3559

Date	2015-02-11
Suit No.	SUIT NO.BFS/306/14
Citation No.	[2015]DLHC3559

HER LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

K. P. NKANSAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF

[2015]DLHC3559
																																						<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" >SINAPI ABA SAVINGS &amp;
LOANS LTD.<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DUBAPHARMA CO. LIMITED
&amp; 2 ORS.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION), KUMASI]<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">

SUIT NO.BFS/306/14&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 11TH FEBRUARY, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&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">

K.
P. NKANSAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF<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">

HER
LADYSHIP ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<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">

</div><span style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US">An action was commenced by the Plaintiff Bank against the Defendants
herein for the recovery of the outstanding balance on a loan facility extended
to the 1st Defendant, acting through the 2nd Defendant.
The 2nd and 3rd Defendants were the guarantors under the
loan agreement. By the time the trial commenced, the principal amount and
interest up to the maturity date had been paid off, albeit long after the
agreed due date. It is based on this fact that the Plaintiff is calling on the
Defendants to pay the interest which accrued after the maturity date.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US">Even though the 3rd Defendant had been coming to court, it
turned out that the writ of summons and statement of claim were only served on
him just before the trial. Besides, the 3rd Defendant did not file
any pleadings. This being a court of record, the filing of pleadings is
mandatory. &nbsp;V.C.R.A.C. Crabbe J.S.C. underscored
the functions and importance of pleadings in Hammond v Odoi (1982-83) GLR 1215
at 1235 thus:<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US">“<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;">Pleadings are the
nucleus around which the case - the whole case — revolves. Their very nature
and character thus demonstrate their importance in actions, as for the benefit
of the court as well as for the parties. A trial judge can only consider the
evidence of the parties in the light of their pleadings. The pleadings form the
basis of the respective case of each of the contestants. The pleadings bind and
circumscribe the parties and place fetters on the evidence that they would
lead. Amendment is the course to free them from such fetters. The pleadings
thus manifest the true and substantive merits of the case…” See also Accra Tema
City Council v Ntim (1969) CC 62, CA; Order 82 rule 3 of the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) and Tindana v Chief of Defence Staff (No. 2)
(2011) SCGLR 732. <span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;
font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US">Having failed to file his pleadings, the 3rd Defendant cannot
be said to have participated in this trial, for he has not set any case for the
court to consider. Under the circumstance, the instant trial is between the
Plaintiff, 1st and 2nd Defendants.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US">I wish to make certain observations before I proceed to consider the
main issue before this court. I noticed that even though the 1st Defendant
is a Limited Liability Company, an appearance was entered on its behalf by one
Kwame Bonsu Poku who is not a lawyer. This sins against the provisions of order
4 rule 1 (2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, C.I. 47 which
reads:<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US">“A body corporate shall not begin or carry on
proceedings except by a lawyer, unless permitted to do so by an express
provision of any enactment.”<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-ansi-language:
EN-US">Again, by section 42 of the interpretation Act, 2009 Act 792, “ the
expression “may” is to be construed as permissive and empowering , and the
expression “ shall” as imperative and mandatory.&nbsp; By a strict interpretation and application of
Order 4 rule 1(2) of C.I. 47, the said Kwame Bonsu Poku had no business in
entering appearance on behalf of the 1st Defendant Company. The
appearance filed by Kwame Bonsu Poku ought to have been struck out to enable
the 1st Defendant to comply with the rules of procedure but this was
not done. However, the matter was partially settled at pre-trial. Terms of
settlement were signed and the same entered as consent judgment. The sole issue
before me is the payment of interest. At this advanced stage, undue delay will
be caused if the 1st Defendant is to go back and correct its
errors.&nbsp; Therefore, I will apply the
provisions of Order 1 rule 1(2) of C.I. 47 and allow the defective appearance
to stand. It reads:<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Arial Unicode MS&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US">“These rules shall be interpreted and applied so as to
achieve speedy and effective justice, avoid delays and unnecessary expense, and
ensure that as far as possible, all matters in dispute between parties may be
completely, effectively and finally determined and multiplicity of proceedings
concerning any of such matters avoid</main>