ACCESS BANK (GHANA) LTD vs. AKUAFO ADAMFO MKTG CO. LTD, FINATRADE HOLDING SA [2016]DLHC11883

Date	2016-04-05
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM0108/15
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC11883

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JEROME NOBLE-NKRUMAH

MARGARET OWUSU FOR PLAINTIFF APPLICANT

KOJO ASARE-BOATENG FOR SAMUEL CUDJOE FOR DEFENDANT RESPONDENT

[2016]DLHC11883
																																						<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" >ACCESS BANK
(GHANA) LTD<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>AKUAFO ADAMFO
MKTG CO. LTD, FINATRADE HOLDING SA<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: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. CM0108/15&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 5TH&nbsp;APRIL 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JEROME NOBLE-NKRUMAH<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid black 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>On
the 26/2/16 counsel for the plaintiff applicant moved her motion on notice for
an order for interlocutory injunction and for interim preservation under order
25 of CI 47. Counsel submits that the second defendant gave a corporate
guarantee to the plaintiff in respect of a facility granted the first defendant
and that upon a default by the primary beneficiary, the facility has been
called in. Attached to the affidavit in support is exhibit PB6, a demand notice
on second defendant to pay up dated 27/11/15. Consequently the applicant seeks
an injunction to restrain defendant respondent and agents from dealing with the
said shares identified in the companies mentioned, in ways that will be
negative to Plaintiff applicants’ interests in the final analysis.&nbsp;&nbsp; This in a nutshell is the basis of the
plaintiff applicants’ application.<o:p></o:p>In
responding, counsel for the second defendant respondent raises a point which to
my mind is fundamental and must be dealt with first as that would determine how
far we go with this present application by the plaintiff. His issue is, can
this application be maintained in terms of order 25 rule 2[1]? , whether shares
are the subject matter of the substantive suit?<o:p></o:p>Order
25 rule 2[1] of CI 47 reads:<o:p></o:p>On
the application of any party to a cause or matter the court may make an order
for the detention, custody or preservation of any property which is the subject
matter of the cause or matter or in respect of which any question may arise in
the action or may order the inspection of any such property in the possession
of a party<o:p></o:p>By
my reading of this rule, there is the presupposition of the existence of a
cause or matter between the parties before the court, before such an
application for the detention custody or preservation of any property which is
the subject matter of that cause or matter[already before the court] and
between the same parties.<o:p></o:p>The
matter between the parties before court is suit no. CM/0108/15, between the
applicant herein and two defendants. I have seen the plaintiffs claim therein
as indorsed on its writ of summons. It is for the recovery of an amount based
on a guarantee plus interest or in the alternative judicial sale of properties
of the defendants, damages for breach of contract and so on.<o:p></o:p>Granted
that there is a pending matter between the parties before court, I cannot
locate shares being the subject matter therein. I am consequently constrained
to locate this present application within the ambit of Order 25 rule 2[1]. I am
also mindful of the fact that I cannot substitute for a party a case contrary
to what he has put forward [ DAM V
ADDO[1960]2 GLR200, BISI V TABIRI@ ASARE[1984-86]2GLR282, CA<o:p></o:p>This
application consequently fails. There shall be no order as to costs.<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;</main>