NTHC LTD vs. GHANA COCOA BOARD [2016]DLHC3512

Date	2016-01-19
Suit No.	SUIT NO.OCC/05/2015
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC3512

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2016]DLHC3512
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">NTHC
LTD<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA COCOA BOARD<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
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">

SUIT
NO.OCC/05/2015&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 19TH JANUARY, 2016 <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">

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR 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">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>It is provided under order 33 Rule 5 of the High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, C. I. 47 that:<o:p></o:p>“Where it appears to the Court that the decision of
any question or issue arising in any cause or matter and tried separately from
the main cause or matter substantially disposes of the cause or matter or renders
the trial of the main cause or matter unnecessary, it may dismiss the cause or
matter or make such other order or give such judgment as may be just”.<o:p></o:p>After the pre trial conference failed to settle the issues
between the parties, three main issues were set down for determination by the
trial Judge. The third issue between the parties as stated was: <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“whether or
not the Plaintiff is stopped from maintaining the present action in the face of
the judgment in suit no AC 741/14 entitled Ghana
Cocoa Board v NTHC Ltd”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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>The court in taking a cue from the rule quoted supra
slated the third issue for preliminary trial and adjourned the consideration of
the first two issues. The net effect of the third issue was that of the defence
of res judicatam such that if this defence raised is sustained; it would be
needless for the court to proceed to determine the substance of the claim of
the plaintiff. To fully appreciate the nature of the previous judgment that is
being flagged by the defendant as barring the Plaintiff from litigating this
matter, it would be instructive for the background that has culminated in this
case to be stated.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Defendant herein in 2012 was prepared to extend credit
facilities for a company by name Dio Jean Ltd for the purchase of cocoa. And as
part of the loan requirement from Defendant, the Dio Jean Ltd was required to
provide an irrevocable guarantee from a financial institution for the repayment
of the loan to Dio Jean. Dio Jean then procured the Plaintiff herein who
provided the unconditional guarantee to the tune of Ten Million Ghana Cedis.
The defendant accordingly extended a Five Million Ghana cedis facilities to Dio
Jean for the purchase of cocoa for the 2012/13 cocoa season. By the close of
the season Dio Jean failed to deliver cocoa worth that value and Dio Jean had
an outstanding amount of One Million Nine Hundred and&nbsp; Ninety Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty One
Ghana Cedis Eighty Pesewas (Ghc1.990.581.80).<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff was called upon to pay whereupon it
refused leading to the defendant dragging the plaintiff to court in Suit No.
AC/740/2014. The Plaintiff failed to file appearance and defence with same
leading to the defendant taking judgment in default of appearance against the
Plaintiff. A last minute desperate attempt to set aside the default judgment
was dismissed by Mensah J. sitting at the Fast Track Division of the High
Court. With little options available to the Plaintiff it paid the monies to
defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this instant action plaintiff claims an amount of
Ghc 830.000.00 and an interest of Ghc 132.800.00 which he claims were debt owed
by Dio Jean from the 2011/12 cocoa season and which were illegally carried
forward to 2012/13 by some illegal acts of collusion between Dio Jean and the
defendant without its knowledge. To him the guarantee it provided does not
cover any previous debt owed by Dio Jean.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is not in dispute that the documents admitted into
evidence as tendered by the defendant, who bore the burden of proof on this
issue, show that the judgment it seeks to rely on is a default judgment. Ex
“A9” being the judgment show that final judgment was entered for the defendant
in default of appearance o</main>