NDK FINANCIAL SERVICES vs. ASEC INTERNATIONAL & ORS [2017]DLHC11928

Date	2017-07-14
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ 662/17
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC11928

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE PATIENCE-MILLS TETTEH

AKOSUA H. ASIAMAH LED BY MRS. ABENA NTRAKWA MENSAH FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

SAMUEL QUANSAH ANSAH FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

[2017]DLHC11928
																																						<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" >NDK FINANCIAL SERVICES <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p><a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>ASEC
INTERNATIONAL &amp; ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT NO. GJ 662/17&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 14TH&nbsp;JULY 2017<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; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SAMUEL
QUANSAH ANSAH FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPLICANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE PATIENCE-MILLS
TETTEH<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

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

</div>This
is a motion to
strike out the application for reserve price for want of jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
applicant/ respondent filed an
application for reserve price on 8th May 2017 together with a
hearing notice with a return date of 2nd June 2017.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Before
the hearing of the application for reserved price on 2nd June
however, the respondents/applicants caused their counsel to file a notice of
motion on 1st June 2017 to strike out the applicant/respondent’s
application for reserved price for
want of jurisdiction. The application
to strike out the reserve price was however
not brought to the notice of the
court so the court on 2nd
June 2017 proceeded
to hear and granted the motion for reserve price. The order so granted was therefore set
aside by a motion on the 28th June filed to that end to pave way for
the application to strike out the motion for reserve price to be heard.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In
arguing the motion to strike out the reserve price the respondent/ applicant cited the
various enactments which gives a party a right to come to Court and commence an action by originating notice
of motion, and stated that it is
expressly so stated in those
enactments.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It
is the case of counsel for respondent/ applicant that the application was filed
under section 33 (b) of the Borrowers and lenders Act, Act 773, and therefore
this court is not clothed with jurisdiction to
entertain the application in the manner in which it has been brought.
Counsel for respondent/applicant cited the three
modes of commencing an action namely by writ, a petition and an originating
notice of motion. It
is the case for the respondent/ applicant that under the various enactment
which gives a party a right to come to Court and commence an action by
originating notice of motion, it is expressly stated in the enactment.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Counsel for respondent/ applicant cited three examples
namely;<o:p></o:p>