OYOKO CONTRACTORS LIMITED vs. STARCOM BROADCASTING SERVICES LTD. AND FRANK OKYERE [2017]DLHC16544

OYOKO CONTRACTORS LIMITED vs. STARCOM BROADCASTING SERVICES LTD. AND FRANK OKYE... [2017]DLHC16544

Date	2017-10-31
Suit No.	SUIT NO. AL/48/2009
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC16544

HIS LORDSHIP K. A. GYIMAH

YAW BOAFO FOR PLAINTIFF

SEAN POKU FOR THADDEUS SORY FOR 1ST DEFENDANT

PAUL OPOKU WITH DOROTHY ESINAM TETTEY FOR 2ND DEFENDANT

[2017]DLHC16544
																																						<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" >OYOKO CONTRACTORS LIMITED <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>STARCOM BROADCASTING
SERVICES LTD. AND FRANK OKYERE&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT NO. AL/48/2009&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
31ST&nbsp;OCTOBER 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>YAW
BOAFO FOR PLAINTIFF<o:p></o:p>SEAN
POKU FOR THADDEUS SORY FOR 1ST DEFENDANT<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;">

</div>CORAM<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;">

</div>&nbsp;<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;">

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

</div>Background
<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This case can sadly be categorized as
one of the cases that fit the description of the popular saying “justice
delayed is justice denied”.&nbsp; The suit
number AL/48/2009 presupposes that the case was instituted sometime in
2009.&nbsp; The writ of summons was however
issued on 26th February 2002.&nbsp;
Considering the date of the issuance of the writ, this case has
travelled through the hands of a number of judges.&nbsp; Two judgments have already been delivered in this
matter in favour of the 1st defendant all of which were set
aside.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;On 24th July 2002 the court
differently constituted delivered summary judgment in this matter in favour of
the 1st defendant on its counterclaim against the plaintiff. The
said summary judgment was however set aside by the Court of Appeal on 4th
December 2003 which judgment is reported as Oyoko Contractors Ltd. v. Starcom
Broadcasting Services [2003-2005] 1 GLR 445.&nbsp; When the Court of Appeal delivered its
judgment, the High Court had to deal with the matter on its merits.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The plaintiff however failed to
prosecute its claim and the claim was struck out on 27th April
2009.&nbsp; The 1st defendant was
directed by the court to prove its counterclaim which it did. On 3rd
June 2009, judgment was granted in favour of the 1st defendant
against the plaintiff on the 1st defendant’s counterclaim.&nbsp; The said judgment was however, on application
by the plaintiff, set aside and the plaintiff was given an opportunity to
prosecute its claim and defend the 1st defendant’s counterclaim.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;When the case was eventually
transferred to me, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant had concluded
their respective cases and it was left with the 2nd defendant to
open his defence.&nbsp; Proceedings were duly
adopted and the 2nd defendant was directed to open his defence which
he finally did after a series of adjournments.&nbsp;
The 2nd defendant closed his case on 20th March
2017 and the parties were asked to file their addresses simultaneously on or
before 2nd May 2017.&nbsp; None of
the parties was able to file the address on that date but the 1st
defendant eventually managed to file its address on 20th June
2017.&nbsp; The court gave the other parties
additional time to file their respective addresses but as the court is
delivering this judgment this morning, they have still not filed their
addresses.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Plaintiff’s
Case<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The plaintiff’s claim before the court
is for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:54.0pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-36.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo1">i.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-se</main>