AMA LOKKO vs. ECOBANK GHANA LIMITED [2016]DLHC11566

Date	2016-01-15
Suit No.	SUIT NO. RPC/140/2015
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC11566

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH (MRS.)

SOMOAH ASAMOAH FOR PLAINTIFF PRESENT

GOLDA DENYO WITH NANA AKUA AFRIYIE FOR DEFENDANT

[2016]DLHC11566
																																						<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" >AMA LOKKO<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ECOBANK GHANA LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<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" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. RPC/140/2015&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 15TH JANUARY
2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>SOMOAH ASAMOAH FOR
PLAINTIFF PRESENT<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;">

GOLDA
DENYO WITH NANA AKUA&nbsp;&nbsp; AFRIYIE FOR
DEFENDANT<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="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;tab-stops:159.75pt;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 Plaintiff by a writ filed in this
court on the 9th of September 2015 seeks the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>a) Special damages of <o:p></o:p>i) €12, 000.00<o:p></o:p>Ii) US$10,300<o:p></o:p>iii) GH¢15,000 <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;b) Interest on the sums in a) supra from dates
spent to date of final&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; payment at the
prevailing bank rate <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;c)&nbsp;
General damages of USD 1 million or its cedi equivalent together with
interest thereon from the date of award till date of final payment at the
prevailing bank rate.<o:p></o:p>d)&nbsp;
Costs<o:p></o:p>The averments in the accompanying
Statement of Claim disclose the grounds giving rise to the instant action.
These grounds can be found particularly in paragraphs 10-34 of the Plaintiff’s
Statement of Claim.<o:p></o:p>What this Court gleans from the Writ
of Summons and Statement of Claim is that, Plaintiff’s action is principally
for damages for losses purportedly suffered by her due to the Defendant’s
failure to return her title deeds to her in compliance with an order of the
High Court (Commercial Division) in SUIT
NO OCC/73/09.&nbsp; The Defendant herein
was not a Party to that suit and the pleadings filed by both Parties in this
present suit, SUIT NO. RPC/140/2015
do not disclose the existence of commercial or business relationship between
Plaintiff and Defendant except the fact that Defendant at one point in time had
in its custody, Plaintiff’s land title deeds which had been given to Defendant
by a Third Party, who is not a Party to the instant suit.<o:p></o:p>This Court upon a careful study of the
pleadings filed by the Parties, particularly the reliefs claimed by Plaintiff,
is of the view that the action has not been filed in the proper division of the
High Court, given the parameters set by ORDER 58 OF CI47 regarding actions that
may be entertained by the Commercial Division of the High Court and has
accordingly informed Counsel of its intention to apply to Her Ladyship the
Chief Justice to transfer same to the proper forum.<o:p></o:p>Counsel for Plaintiff however submits
that by virtue of sub-rule (IV) and (XVI) OF ORDER 58 R 2, the instant action
falls within the purview of this court.<o:p></o:p>ORDER
58(2) defines a
Commercial Claim as one arising out of trade and commerce and goes on to spell
out instances where a claim will qualify as a Commercial Claim. To my mind, on
a true and proper construction of ORDER
58(1) AND (2), any action filed in the Commercial Court should be one
related to trade and commerce or one pertaining to a business relationship
between the Parties. The jurisdiction of this court is clearly limited by ORDERS 58(1) AND (2) which spell out
the nature of claims that this court is competent to handle. Learned counsel
for Plaintiff seeks shelter under SUB-RULES
(IV) AND XVI which define a Commercial Claim to include “a business
document” and “other Commercial Claims” respectively and submits that
Plaintiff’s claim is covered by these two sub-rules. <o:p></o:p>I am unable to accept Counsel’s
proposition that in ascertaining jurisdiction, the determining factor should
not only be the nature of the reliefs sought but also, the matters giving rise
to the claim. Indeed there is a wealth of authority in support of the legal
principle that it is the claim of the Plaintiff that determines jurisdiction of
a court to hear a matter. In the case of AKATI
V NARTEY (1980) GLR 218, the Court expatiated on this principle and went on
to emphasize that even in cases where there was a difficulty in ascertaining
the nature of the Plaintiff’s claim, it is the issue(s) that emerges between
the Parties that the court should pay regard to in determining jurisdiction. As
far as this court is concerned, the main issue that falls for determination on
the face of the pleadings is, whether the Defendant failed or refused to return
Plaintiff’s land title deeds to her, pursuant to a Court order and whether
Plaintiff suffered the losses alleged as a result of the said failure or
refusal on the part of Defendant. The conclusion of this Court will be no
different even if the Court decided to go by Counsel’s contention that it is
the matters giving rise to the instant action that should determine the
competence of this Court to try the matter.&nbsp;
Quite clearly, the matters necessitating the institution of the instant
suit relate to losses allegedly suffered by Plaintiff as a result of the
purported withholding of her land title documents by Defendant and nothing
more. I have deliberately refrained from examining the Statement of Defence in
any detail since in my opinion that essentially should have no bearing on this
Court’s decision regarding whether or not it has jurisdiction to hear the
instant suit.<o:p></o:p>As already noted in this ruling, the
pleadings filed do not disclose any trade, business or commercial relationship
or transaction between the Parties to the suit. I find it hard to appreciate
Counsel for Plaintiff’s contention that Plaintiff’s land title document
qualifies as a “business document” within the meaning of ORDER 58(2) (IV) merely because she allegedly needed the said
document to raise funding from some Third Party.&nbsp; Indeed, it is not the case of Counsel that
the order of the Court for the return of the land title documents to Plaintiff
by Defendant specified that it was to enable Plaintiff raise funding, even
t</main>