INTERNATIONAL ROM LIMITED vs. VODAFONE GHANA LIMITED AND FIDELITY BANK LIMITED [2016]DLSC2791

Date	2016-10-26
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J8/121/2016
Citation No.	[2016]DLSC2791

ANIN YEBOAH JSC

AKOTO – BAMFO (MRS) JSC

BENIN JSC

AKAMBA JSC

APPAU JSC

EMMANUEL AMOFAH ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT /APPLICANT.

TONY LITHUR ESQ. FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT /RESPONDENT.

[2016]DLSC2791
																																						<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" >INTERNATIONAL ROM
LIMITED<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>VODAFONE GHANA LIMITED
AND FIDELITY BANK LIMITED<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, 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">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO. J8/121/2016&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;DATE: 26TH
OCTOBER, 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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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>EMMANUEL
AMOFAH ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>/APPLICANT.
<o:p></o:p>TONY
LITHUR ESQ.&nbsp; FOR THE 1ST
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">/RESPONDENT.<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">

ANIN YEBOAH JSC,
AKOTO – BAMFO (MRS) JSC, BENIN&nbsp; JSC,
AKAMBA JSC, AND APPAU JSC<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">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>AKAMBA, JSC: <o:p></o:p>On
the 6th of June 2016, we unanimously dismissed the appeal brought by
the 1st defendant/appellant/appellant and respondent in this motion
against the decision of the Court of Appeal which had affirmed an earlier
decision of the High Court (Commercial Division) Accra in favour of the plaintiff/respondent/respondent
and applicant herein.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By
our decision, we affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal save for a
variation. We substituted an award for the payment of the outstanding balance
under the undertaking given by the plaintiff/applicant to the 2nd
defendant but which monies were paid to other banks. We consequently entered an
award for the recovery of the outstanding balance under the undertaking from
both (plaintiff) applicant and (1st defendant) respondent jointly.<o:p></o:p>The
Applicant herein filed the present motion on 7th July 2016 barely a
month after our decision seeking a clarification ‘to parts of the judgment of
this Honourable Court dated June 6, 2016’ citing reliance on Rule 5 of CI 16.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Rule
5 of CI 16 provides that: <o:p></o:p>“5. Where provision is not expressly
made by these Rules regarding the practice and procedure which shall apply to a
cause or matter before the Court, the Court shall prescribe the practice and
procedure that in the opinion of the Court the justice of the cause or matter
requires.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Reading
the ruling of the court in a similar application seeking clarification by this
court in the case of NDK Financial
Service Ltd v Ahaman Ltd and 2 ors, CM J8/29/2016 on 10th March 2016,
I stated that: &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>“This being the
last and final court of the land, in a situation in which the rules of court or
any other relevant statute, do not prescribe particular practices or procedure
as the justice of a cause or matter may require, it is appropriate to grant the
application, provided there is substance in it and regardless of the form in
which it has been intituled. This is in consonance with the duty of the courts
to do substantial justice on the issue/s before it. A court of justice has a
duty to render its decisions with sufficient clarity so as not to leave parties
in any doubt/s as to the outcome of its pronouncements. Where doubts are
evident or uncertainties obvious from the court’s orders, rulings or judgments,
it is appropriate to seek the </main>