TSATSU TSIKATA vs. JUBILEE GHANA MV21 INC & 1 OR [2016]DLCA4767

Date	2016-10-18
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO: H3/392/16
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA4767

BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU JA

[2016]DLCA4767
																																						<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" >TSATSU TSIKATA<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>JUBILEE GHANA MV21 INC &amp; 1 OR<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION), 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: H3/392/16&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;&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;18TH
OCTOBER, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>BARBARA
ACKAH-YENSU JA SITTING AS SINGLE JUDGE <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="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:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>This ruling is in
respect of a Motion on Notice for Stay of Proceedings pending Appeal against Objection
to Jurisdiction of the High Court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 30th
July, 2015, the High Court, Commercial Division, Accra, made an Order, granting
the Plaintiff leave to issue the writ of summons and serve it out of the jurisdiction
on the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Appellants/Applicants
(“Defendants”). The Order was accordingly served on the said Defendants.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Defendants applied
to the High Court to set aside the Order and the service of the Notice of the
writ on them on the ground that on the basis of the facts before the Court, the
Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent’s (“Plaintiff”) case did not fall within Order
8 r 3(1) (h) and (i) of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules 2004 (C.I.47),
and that the Court had no jurisdiction to give leave to the Plaintiff to issue
the writ and serve notice thereof out of the jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 26th
April, 2016, the High Court declined the Defendants’ application to discharge
the Order and the service on them.&nbsp; The
Court further ordered the suit to take its normal course and gave the Defendants
fourteen days within which to file their statement of defence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Dissatisfied with
the decision of the Court, the Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal on
the ground that the decision of the High Court was wrong and not supportable in
law and on the facts.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Defendants have
subsequently appealed to this Court for an order staying proceedings in the suit
in question pending the determination of their appeal against the High Court’s
decision and for such further and other orders as to this Court may deem fit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the affidavit in
support of the application, and also in the submissions by Counsel for the Defendants,
the contention is that there are special circumstances warranting the stay of
proceedings. That, where a non-resident defendant objects to the assumption of
jurisdiction by a court over him, that defendant must not file a defence or
take a step in the matter that is inconsistent with his objection to the jurisdiction
of the court over him.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel therefore
submits that if the proceedings before the High Court are not stayed, the
Defendants will be required to file their defence to the Plaintiff’s
action.&nbsp; As soon as a defence is filed,
the Defendants will lose the right to object to the jurisdiction of the High
Court and thus automatically render their appeal nugatory even if the
Defendants were to succeed ultimately in their appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel relied on
the decisions in the following cases: Renault Vehicles Ind. vrs Ashanti
Engineering Ind. [1991] 1 GLR 443, Polimex (Polish Export &amp; Import) Co. Ltd
vrs B.B.C. Builders &amp; Engineers Co. Ltd [1968] GLR 168; Edusei vrs. Diners
Club Suisse S.A. [1982-83] GLR 809; and Eboe vrs Eboe [1962] 1 GLR 453.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Plaintiff is
resisting the application, contending that the application is entirely without
merit and that the appeal stands no chance of success.&nbsp; That, it is simply a tactic being employed by
the Defendants to deny him his rights and to delay the process of justice. He
also contends that if the proceedings are stayed, it will cause injustice to
him; he is seeking to enforce rights that he has been denied by the conduct of
the Defendants since July 2010.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>