THE DENYASE STOOL vs. NOBLE DREAM MICROFINANCE LIMITED [2016]DLHC3826

Date	2016-11-29
Suit No.	SUIT NO.BFS/604/14
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC3826

ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

WILLIAM KUSI FOR PLAINTIFF.

KWASI ADU MANTEY FOR DEFENDANT.

[2016]DLHC3826
																																						<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">THE
DENYASE STOOL<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>NOBLE DREAM MICROFINANCE LIMITED<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.BFS/604/14&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 29TH
NOVEMBER, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>WILLIAM KUSI FOR PLAINTIFF.<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">

KWASI
ADU MANTEY FOR DEFENDANT.<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">

ANGELINA
MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) 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">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>In
this suit, the plaintiff, which is the Denyase Stool, per its occupant Nana
Owusu Adueni III has invited this court to do two things namely: (i) to
terminate the agreement between the parties as same has been breached by the
Defendant and (ii) to revert interest in the land in issue to the Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff' s case appears quite simple and straight forward on the face of it but
indeed it is in a class of its own. It is that on or about February, 2013, the
Denyasi stool acting per its occupant entered into an agreement with the
Defendant for the sale of one hundred (100) acres of land for a total
consideration of GH¢ 460,000.00. After using GH¢ 160,000.00 out of this sum to
compensate farmers on the land, the defendant allegedly convinced the plaintiff
to invest the balance of GH¢ 300.00 in its micro finance business. It is the Plaintiff's
case that after the maturity period, the Defendant failed to re-pay the sum of
GH¢ of GH¢ 362, 605.17 which had become due, and has refused to do so to date.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Plaintiff claimed that it is no longer
interested in the money the Defendant owes them but will rather take over the
land the subject matter of the contract.<o:p></o:p>The
Defendant caused its lawyer to file a defence on its behalf and after a failed
attempt to settle the matter at the pre-trial stage, issues were set down for
trial. Consequently, orders were made for the filing of witness statements. The
Plaintiff filed its witness statement on 22/03/2016 and same was served on
counsel for the Defendant on 24/03/2016 (see affidavit of service filed on
29/03/2016 and deposed by Alex Akumey of the EMS Court Process Services). As at
11/05/2016, the Defendant had not filed its witness statement and so the court
extended the time for doing so by 21 days. On 17/05/2016 and 19/05/2016, the Plaintiff's
pre-trial check-list and a hearing notice were duly served on the Defendant's lawyer
(see affidavits of service filed on 18/05/2016 and 02/06/2016 by the same EMS
process server).&nbsp; At the scheduled Case
Management Conference on 17/06/2016, the Defendant and its counsel were absent
although they had been served with hearing notice. In accordance with Order 32
rule 7A (3) (b) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 C.I. 47, as
amended by the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules , 2014 C.I. 87 , the
statement of defence filed by the Defendant was accordingly struck out. The
said rule reads:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "
Where a party has failed to comply with any of the directions given at a case
management conference or a pre-trial review or both, the Judge may make any of
the following orders...<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (b)
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; strike out the defence and counterclaim
as the case may be, if the non-complying party is a defendant."<o:p></o:p>On
24/10/2016, the Plaintiff proceeded to prove its claims and it did so by
relying on the witness statement of Nana Donkor Kwagyan, Linquist of the Paramount
Chief of Denyase and which was filed on 22/3/16 . <o:p></o:p>The
issues which this court has to determine are these:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether
or not the Plaintiff invested the purchase price/value of the Agreement it
entered into with the Defendant Company?<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;