NYONKOPA COCOA BUYING COMPANY LIMITED vs. UNICOM COMMODITIES COMPANY LIMITED [2017]DLHC4159

Date	2017-04-07
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC 52/2010
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC4159

DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE HIGH COURT JUDGE

FRANK OTOO FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

KAMIL MOHAMMED IDDRISU FOR DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

[2017]DLHC4159
																																						<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" >NYONKOPA COCOA BUYING
COMPANY LIMITED<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>UNICOM COMMODITIES COMPANY LIMITED <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. OCC 52/2010&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 7TH APRIL, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:
<o:p></o:p>FRANK OTOO FOR
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT <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">&nbsp;<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">

<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>Before me is an
application for an order of the court to strike out the suit against the Defendant/Applicant
on the ground that the statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of
action against the Defendant. The application is premised on Order 11 rule 18
(1)(a) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004 (CI 47).<o:p></o:p>On 17/02/2017, the Plaintiff/Respondent
herein filed a writ of summons against the Defendant/Applicant for:<o:p></o:p>"1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An
order for payment of GHC2,000.00 being special, general, exemplary and punitive
damages against the Defendant Company for the Plaintiff Company for the malicious
and deliberate act of misleading the police to cause the arrest, impounding and
detention of a truck fully loaded with quantities of bags of cocoa beans
graded, bagged, sealed and uniquely coded and specially way billed with Quality
Control Certificate (QCC) in the Plaintiff Company's name which Defendant/Company's
said malicious and deliberate act was conspicuously contrary to the best
practices, customs and usages in the cocoa beans' purchases industry and
COCOBOD'S practice directive regulations and which said arrest, impounding and
detention of the said truck and its said consequence caused an &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; embarrassment, defamation,
disrespect, scorn and denigration to the Plaintiff company whilst costing the
Plaintiff Company some cash sums. <o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An
order of perpetual injunction against the Defendant Company, its assigns,
agents, servants, workmen and all those who work for it from further making
such malicious and deliberate act of misleading, the police to cause the arrest
and an impounding of the Plaintiff bags of cocoa beans graded, bagged, sealed
and uniquely coded and specially way billed with Quality Control Certificate (QCC)
in the Plaintiff Company's name or in whatever interfering with the operations
of the Plaintiff Company. <o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Cost
on indemnity basis <o:p></o:p>According to the
defendant/applicant, the facts pleaded by the plaintiff/respondent do not in
any way vests the plaintiffs with a cause of action against the defendant and
for that matter it will be needless to enquire into the merits of the case
since that will be an exercise in futility. <o:p></o:p>Counsel referred to the
plaintiff’s statement of claim and stated that it alleges libel against the
defendant. He submitted that the law on defamation specifically libel imposes
certain requirements on the plaintiff to be met in order for the plaintiff to
succeed in an action before the court. These requirements were restated as
follows:<o:p></o:p>1.
There must be an allegation of a statement which is defamatory;<o:p></o:p>2.
The statement must refers to the plaintiff; and<o:p></o:p>3.
The statement must be published.<o:p></o:p>On the first requirement,
counsel stated that there is the need for the plaintiff to state the exact
defamatory words and that the plaintiff has not pleaded any statement that the
court can enquire into to determine whether the words or statement amount to
libel. He submitted that the fundamental requirement of pleading the alleged
libelous statement has not been met. He referred to paragraph 15 of the
statement of the statement of claim and stated that there is no statement in
the paragraph that suggests defamation.<o:p></o:p>He also submitted that the
plaintiff did not state any defamatory statement which was made by the defendant
in reference to the plaintiff and that particulars of the alleged publication
were also not pleaded.<o:p></o:p>In a nutshell, counsel
</main>