FIRST ATLANTIC BANK LTD vs. O. T. BROTHERS COMPANY LTD [2017]DLHC4109

Date	2017-03-02
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BFS 149/2013
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC4109

DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

ANITA ASHONG-KATAI FOR THE PLAINTIFF

KWADWO DEI-KWARTENG FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2017]DLHC4109
																																						<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" >FIRST ATLANTIC BANK LTD<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>O. T. BROTHERS COMPANY LTD <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), 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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

SUIT&nbsp;NO. BFS 149/2013&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 2ND MARCH, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:
<o:p></o:p>ANITA ASHONG-KATAI FOR THE
PLAINTIFF<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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

</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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

</div><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>During the case management
conference on 28/02/2017, counsel for the defendant raised an objection to the
admissibility of Exhibit “O” and Exhibit “P” which were attached to the
plaintiff’s witness statement. He argued that the exhibits being letters
written by the defendant in an attempt to settle the matter cannot be used
against him (defendant) during the trial. He contended that they are not
admissible and should be rejected. Counsel relied on section 105 of the
Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) which states:<o:p></o:p>(1)&nbsp;&nbsp; A person has a privilege to refuse to
disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing to the tribunal of
fact information concerning the furnishing, offering or accepting by such
person or his authorised representative of valuable consideration in
compromising a claim which was disputed either as to validity or amount and
information concerning conducts or statements made as an integral part of such
compromise negotiations.<o:p></o:p>Both letters were in
response to the demand notice (exhibit N) sent to the defendant earlier on. It
must be noted that at the time Exhibits ‘0’ and ‘P’ were authored there was no
dispute between the parties.<o:p></o:p>In Jebeilev. Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd. [1961] GLR 252,
255 the court held as follows:<o:p></o:p>“The
law as I understand it, is that letters written during bona fide negotiations
or attempts to settle or compromise a dispute cannot, on the [p.255] grounds of
public policy, be given in evidence as admissions; Paddock v. Forrester,2
Oliver v. Nautilus Steam Shipping Co. Ltd.3 If it were not so, attempts at
extra-judicial settlement of disputes will not have favourable consideration by
parties, as it will expose them to risks of being trapped by their opponents
and operate to their own detriment. ..”<o:p></o:p>In Commonwealth v Jennings Construction Ltd. (1985) VR 586 the court
described dispute as follows:&nbsp; “a dispute
arises when one party claims something, and the other party notifies the other
that he rejects the claim.” The notice could be expressed or implied by
conduct.<o:p></o:p>In the instant case, there
was no dispute between the parties at the time Exhibits ‘O’ and ‘P’ were
authored. Consequently, there was no bona fide negotiation or settlement
process within the meaning of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010. Therefore,
section 105(1) of the Evidence Act cannot restrain the plaintiff from using the
said documents to prosecute their case, as no such privilege existed by virtue
of the fact that there was no dispute. Section 105 (2) of the Evidence Act is
therefore relevant in the instant case. The section provides:<o:p></o:p>“A
person does not have privilege under subsection (1) if that person or the
conduct or statements of the authorized representative relating to the
compromise were made with the intention that they would not be privileged from
disclosure to a tribunal of fact.”<o:p></o:p>In the result, the
objection is overruled. Exhibits “O” and “P” are admissible in evidence.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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>