SOLKROCK LIMITED vs. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI (GH) LTD. GOLD HOUSE KAWOKUDI

SOLKROCK LIMITED vs. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI (GH) LTD. GOLD HOUSE KAWOKUDI – ACCRA [2017]DLCA5216

Date	2017-02-16
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/50/2016
Citation No.	[2017]DLCA5216

AYEBI J.A. (PRESIDING)

TORKORNOO (MRS) J. A.

DOMAKYAAREH (MRS) J. A.

KWAME ADOM-APPIAH WITH DENNIS OSEI ANTWI AND J. B. DANQUAH FOR

PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

KWASI FYNN FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2017]DLCA5216
																																						<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" >SOLKROCK LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI (GH) LTD. GOLD HOUSE
KAWOKUDI – ACCRA<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, KUMASI]<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. H1/50/2016
&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;DATE:
16TH FEBRUARY, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWAME ADOM-APPIAH WITH DENNIS
OSEI ANTWI AND J. B. DANQUAH FOR PLAINTIFF/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">

</div>CORAM:
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>AYEBI J.A. (PRESIDING),
TORKORNOO (MRS) J. A., DOMAKYAAREH (MRS) 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="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;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>TORKORNOO
(MRS), J.A.<o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff/Appellant in this suit commenced an action against the Defendant/ Respondent.
The Defendant/Respondent entered conditional appearance ‘through its lawyers’. ‘Counsel’
for Defendant then filed an application to set aside the writ on the ground
that it was indorsed with a postal address, instead of a business address. In
the affidavit in opposition to this application, the Managing Director of the Plaintiff
company gave notice that he had been advised that the ‘purported application is incompetent and cannot properly invoke the
jurisdiction of the court since it has no foundation to stand on’. He gave
notice that his counsel would seek leave to raise a preliminary objection for
the application to be dismissed. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This preliminary
application was raised at the hearing of the application to set aside the writ.
The objection which can be found on page 13 of the Record of Appeal is that the
‘person’ who entered conditional
appearance for the Respondent is not a lawyer but a firm because the names found
on the appearance notice constitutes the name of a firm. As such, the
application is a nullity because the purported conditional appearance is void
in law. <o:p></o:p>In response to the
arguments on this objection, found on page 14 of the Record of Appeal (ROA),
counsel for Respondent pointed out that if counsel for Appellant had raised the
issues he was contending in the preliminary objection in a formal manner, they
(counsels for the Respondent) could have reacted to his arguments. <o:p></o:p>His argument was that a preliminary
objection must conform to rules regarding preliminary objections and the law
requires parties to an application not to digress when it comes to arguing an
application. He cited the decision on Nana
Akosua Agyare Ap Trustee Synagogue of All Nations JH/30/2010, correctly
cited by the honorable trial court in her ruling as The Trustees Synagogue Church Of all Nations v Agyeman 2010 SCGLR 717.
He also pointed out that the law requires that an application be filed to set
aside appearance to a suit, and not for a preliminary objection to be raised in
such circumstances. <o:p></o:p>Thus in the hearing of the
preliminary application, two issues were placed before the court. Whether or
not she could deal with the issue of what Appellant regarded as the ‘nullity’
of the motion paper on account of the ‘nullity’ of the conditional appearance
through the preliminary objection; and if so, whether or not the motion was
null and void.<o:p></o:p>In her ruling, she sided
with the Plaintiff/Appellant on the sustainability of the preliminary
application. Citing from the Gambian case of Kabo Airlines Ltd v The Sheriff Court of Appeal, Gambia (27th
March, 2002) unreported and referred to in the Synagogue Case cited supra, the learned trial judge identified the
rule of thumb regarding the sustainability of preliminary applications. The
rule is that the purpose of a preliminary objection is to</main>