NANA KWADWO GYASI COMPANY LTD. (SUAME-KUMASI) vs. SAND & STONE CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION (PER THE CHAIRMAN TANOSO BRANCH TANOSO- KUMASI) [2016]DLCA7985

NANA KWADWO GYASI COMPANY LTD. (SUAME-KUMASI) vs. SAND & STONE CONTRACTORS ASSO... [2016]DLCA7985

Date	2016-04-11
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: H1/27/2016
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA7985

AYEBI J.A. (PRESIDING)

TORKORNOO J. A.

DOMAKYAAREH J. A.

KWASI AFRIFA FOR APPELLANT

VIVIAN MFODWAA-GYAN FOR RESPONDENT

[2016]DLCA7985
																																						<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" >NANA KWADWO GYASI COMPANY LTD. (SUAME-KUMASI) (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SAND &amp; STONE CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION (PER THE CHAIRMAN
TANOSO BRANCH TANOSO- KUMASI)<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT NO.: H1/27/2016&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; DATE: 11TH APRIL,
2016<o:p></o:p>

</div><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:
minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;">COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">KWASI AFRIFA FOR APPELLANT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">VIVIAN MFODWAA-GYAN FOR RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>AYEBI J.A. (PRESIDING), TORKORNOO J. A., DOMAKYAAREH
J. A.<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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>TORKORNOO,
J. A:<o:p></o:p>The Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinafter
referred to as the Respondent) sued the Sand &amp; Stone Contractor’s
Association per the Chairman, Tanoso –Branch for: <o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The
recovery of the sum of Two Hundred and Ten Thousand Ghana Cedis (GH¢210,000)
being the balance due to the Respondent from the Defendant which said amount
the Defendant’s representative collected from the Respondent under the pretext
of selling a parcel of land to the Respondent at Tanoso, Kumasi which said land
was eventually found not be belong to the Defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Interest
on the said amount from 10th January, 2013 to the date of final
payment. <o:p></o:p>The endorsed Defendant/Appellant
(hereinafter referred to as Appellant) entered conditional appearance and contested
the jurisdiction of the commercial court as a proper forum for the resolution
of the case set out by the Respondent. According to the Appellant, the suit was
a land dispute that had been dressed up as a commercial claim. On 28th
April 2014, the trial judge refused that application and assumed jurisdiction
over the case. The Appellant did not appeal the decision to assume jurisdiction
over the case within 21 days as required by Rule 9 (1) (a) of the Court of Appeal Rules 1997 CI 19. It reads <o:p></o:p>9.
Time limits for appealing<o:p></o:p>(1)
Subject to any other enactment governing appeals, an appeal shall not be
brought after the expiration of <o:p></o:p>a)
twenty-one days, in the case of an appeal against an interlocutory decision<o:p></o:p>In their defence filed after this
ruling and on 8th May 2014, the Appellant contended that the writ
infringes the rules of court and is incurably defective and that the writ
having been issued by Holy Trinity Chambers, same ought to be dismissed. These
allegations were not supported with details of what made the writ incurably
defective and why the issue of the writ by Holy Trinity Chambers should lead to
a dismissal of the writ. <o:p></o:p>Meanwhile on 30th April 2014, nineteen
persons had filed an application on notice to be joined as Defendants in the
suit. The basis of their application was that they had an interest in the
subject matter of the transaction that had led to the litigation before the
court and wanted all matters in controversy to be dealt with once and for all.
The Respondent opposed the application for joinder on the ground that the
joinder was not necessary for the final and effective determination of the
action. It warned that if the application was granted, it would cause a delay
of the suit which is purely a commercial matter. <o:p></o:p>