WOOD HOUSE LTD. vs. AIRTEL GHANA LTD. [2017]DLCA4868

Date	2017-06-08
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/72/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLCA4868

MARIAMA OWUSU (J.A) PRESIDING

LOVELACE-JOHNSON (J.A)

SUURBAAREH (J.A)

VIVIAN TETTEH FOR DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

NASH ADJEI WITH RICHARD ACHEAMPONG FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2017]DLCA4868
																																						<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" >WOOD HOUSE LTD.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>AIRTEL GHANA LTD.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, 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. H1/72/2017&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
8TH JUNE 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>VIVIAN TETTEH FOR DEFENDANT/APPLICANT<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">

NASH ADJEI WITH RICHARD ACHEAMPONG FOR
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>MARIAMA OWUSU (J.A) PRESIDING,
LOVELACE-JOHNSON (J.A), SUURBAAREH (J.A)<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>AVRIL
LOVELACE-JOHNSON (J.A)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The designation of the parties at the
High Court will be maintained in this appeal. The said court on 26th
May 2015 gave the Plaintiff judgment for the sum of USD 2,237,400 with interest
thereon to run until final payment, general damages in the sum of GHS10,000 and
costs of GHS 10,000.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Being dissatisfied with the judgment
the Defendant has launched the present appeal on seven grounds and a further
ground relating to the jurisdiction of the high court to hear the matter.<o:p></o:p>In his written submissions counsel for
the Defendant has stated that he will only argue ground F and the additional
ground filed. Grounds A B C D E and G are hereby deemed abandoned.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The grounds of appeal to be considered
in this judgment are<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The
judgment is against the weight of evidence<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The
learned trial judge erred in assuming jurisdiction contrary to Order 58 Rule 2
of C.I 47 to hear the instant matter which was fundamentally a landlord and
Tenant issue.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel for the Defendant dealt with
the issue of jurisdiction first and stated that the issue of jurisdiction could
be raised at any time during proceedings and even for the first time. That is
trite and the correct position of the law.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>Counsel dedicated ten pages of his
written submissions on this issue and a further four pages of his reply to it.
As a result of this counsel for the Respondent also went on at length i</main>