SACHIN NAMBEEAR vs. ASHOK KUMAR SIVARAM AND JAI –MAI COMMUNICATIONS LTD [2017]DLHC3476

Date	2017-10-30
Suit No.	SUIT NO.CM/0037/17
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3476

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2017]DLHC3476
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">SACHIN
NAMBEEAR<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>ASHOK KUMAR SIVARAM AND JAI –MAI COMMUNICATIONS LTD<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION), 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.CM/0037/17&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 30TH OCTOBER, 2017<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">

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<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">

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

</div>The court has been called upon to make orders in
respect of the Bank accounts of the 2nd Defendant Company in the two
consolidated motions before the court. The first of the applications was filed
on the 7/07/17 by the 1st Defendant for preservation of the status
quo of the mandate on Bank accounts of Jai Mai Communications Ltd held at
Prudential Bank Ltd and Zenith Bank. The second application filed by the
Plaintiff on the 18/07/17 is calling for consequential orders following a
meeting held whilst the 1st Defendant had been deported from Ghana
and which said meeting appointed Robert Boye Quartey as a director, for the court
to make orders directed at Prudential Bank to comply with a request for the
change of mandate of the signatories to the Bank accounts of the 2nd
Defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The court in the exercise of its discretion and guided
by Order 31 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, C. I. 47 generally on
consolidation of suits, which is to the effect that:<o:p></o:p>“Where two or more causes
or matters are pending in the same Court and it appears to the Court<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.25in;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;
mso-layout-grid-align:auto;punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That some common question
of law or fact arises in both or all of them, or<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.25in;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;
mso-layout-grid-align:auto;punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the rights to relief
claimed are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of
transactions or<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:8.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.25in;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1;
mso-layout-grid-align:auto;punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That for some other reason
it is desirable to make an order under this rule……”<o:p></o:p>Though
the provisions supra is on consolidation of suits, however the court thought
that the same provision, mutatis mutandis, could be made applicable in respect
of two or more motions in&nbsp; a suit where
there are common questions of law or facts from the applications for
determination by the court. The common questions of fact and law are one that
the two applications seeks orders in relation to the Bank accounts of 2nd
Defendant company. Two that whilst the first application by 1st Defendant
prays for the maintenance of the status quo regarding the mandate of the
signatories to the accounts the 2nd application by Plaintiff seeks
for an order for the change in mandate compelling Prudential Bank to so
recognise the change as such. <o:p></o:p>For
instance whilst 1st Defendant in the motion paper is “praying to preserve the status quo of the
mandate on the Bank accounts numbers …”, the application of plaintiff on
the other hand is “praying this
honourable court for consequential orders compelling Prudential Bank Ltd, Ring
Road branch and Zenith Bank (Ghana) Ltd to comply with the change in mandate in
accordance with the written resolutions of the Board of Directors on grounds
set forth in the accompanying affidavit”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
factual basis for the motions are that subsequent to an order of this court on
5th May, 2017 the 1st Defendant was arrested and deported
on the orders of the Minister for Interior. Whereupon the Plaintiff who is
ordinarily not resident within the jurisdiction came to Ghana and sent email
and a letter to 1st Defendant on the 19th June, </main>