TIESO GHANA LTD vs. EUROGET DE-INVEST SA [2017]DLHC3663

Date	2017-07-27
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC/30/15
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3663

GEORGE K. KOOMSON JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

GEORGE ESHUN FOR THE PLAINTIFF

GEORGE ANKOMAH MENSAH FOR DEFENDANT

[2017]DLHC3663
																																						<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" >TIESO GHANA LTD<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>EUROGET DE-INVEST SA<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION) ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>SUIT NO. OCC/30/15&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;&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;27TH
JULY, 2017<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>GEORGE ESHUN FOR THE PLAINTIFF <o:p></o:p>GEORGE ANKOMAH MENSAH FOR DEFENDANT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>GEORGE K. KOOMSON JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

</div>RULING<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

</div>In this preliminary legal objection, counsel for the
defendant/respondent states that, the present application is an abuse of the
process. That is to say, the applicant having had their earlier application
dismissed ought not to have filed a fresh application but either come for a
review or go on an appeal. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel for respondent further states that in the earlier
application dismissed by the court, the court made a comment or gave an opinion
in respect of the notice of dissatisfaction filed by the defendant in the
matter after the initial procedure of arbitration. In the opinion of counsel,
having expressed the said opinion, the court should not sit on the instant
application but refer the matter back to the registry for the present
application to be determined by another judge. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In response to the objection, counsel for applicant argues that
the earlier application was dismissed as it was filed pre-maturely. The merits
thereof was therefore not gone into. In the opinion of counsel for applicant,
since the earlier application was refused due to a procedural defect ie being
filed pre- maturely, then, the applicant is not incapacitated in that regard to
bring a fresh application. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I must say that I do not see any mistake in the filing of the
present application. <o:p></o:p>The earlier application was refused or dismissed not on the
merits. It was dismissed because the applicant therein filed the application at
a time it was not ripe to file same. The court therefore ruled as follows: <o:p></o:p>“From the
foregoing reasons, it is my opinion that the application for an order for the
adoption and signing of final judgment in accordance with the arbitral award be
dismissed as having been made prematurely.” <o:p></o:p>Having dismissed the application on grounds that same was filed
pre- maturely, it stands to reason that upon the expiration of the time stated
in the agreement, the applicant may file an application for the adoption and
signing of final judgment in accordance with the arbitral awards. If the court
had gone into the merits of the application and had given a decision on its
merits, then, it would have been said that, the applicant cannot repeat or
bring a fresh application for the same reliefs. Had the court gone into the
merits, the principle of abuse of process which is a principle that is based on
public policy would have been applicable. See: SASU vs AMOA-SAKYI [2003- <o:p></o:p>2004] 2SCGLR 724; NOAS HOLDINGS INC vs GHANA COMMERCIAL <o:p></o:p>BANK LTD. [2011] 1SCGLR 429. <o:p></o:p>