LOTS-SERVICES GHANA LIMITED (PLAINTIFF) vs. NATIONAL LOTTERY AUTHORITY (DEFENDANT) [2017]DLHC7372

LOTS-SERVICES GHANA LIMITED (PLAINTIFF) vs. NATIONAL LOTTERY AUTHORITY (DEFENDAN... [2017]DLHC7372

Date	2017-04-13
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: CM/BDC/0360/2016
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC7372

HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU J.

MR. BAFFOUR GYAU B. ASHIA FOR MR. THADDEUS SORY FOR THE PLAINTIFF PRESENT

MR. ERNEST KUSI WITH HIM GEORGINA ARTHUR FOR THE DEFENDANT PRESENT

[2017]DLHC7372
																																						<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" >LOTS-SERVICES GHANA LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NATIONAL LOTTERY
AUTHORITY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[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/BDC/0360/2016&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 13TH APRIL, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>MR. BAFFOUR GYAU B. ASHIA
FOR MR. THADDEUS SORY FOR THE PLAINTIFF PRESENT<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">

MR.
ERNEST KUSI WITH HIM GEORGINA ARTHUR FOR THE DEFENDANT PRESENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A.
ASIEDU, J.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div>There are two applications before the court. The
first one, filed on the 20th July 2016, seeks an order of the court
to suspend an order of interlocutory injunction granted by the court on the 15th
July 2016. The second application, filed on the 23rd December 2016,
also seeks an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain and or compel the
defendant/respondent herein from: <o:p></o:p>(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
From further
withholding any part and or all of the amount of ONE PER CENT (1) from the
total monthly commission revenue of FOUR AND ONE-HALF PER CENT (4.5%) due the
Plaintiff/Applicant pursuant to clauses 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 of
Plaintiff/Applicant’s agreement with Defendant/Respondent.<o:p></o:p>(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
From making any
further deductions whatsoever from the Plaintiff’s&nbsp; monthly commission revenue of FOUR AND
ONE-HALF PER CENT as forced payments towards the settlement of an alleged amount
of Elven Million Six Hundred and Eight One Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty
Ghana Cedis and sixty seven Ghana pesewas owed (GH¢11,681,720.67) to the
Defendant by Plaintiff for the latter’s failure to deliver functionalities
listed in Defendant’s letter to the Plaintiff dated November 4, 2016.<o:p></o:p>(iii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
An order
compelling Defendant/Respondent to refund to Plaintiff/Applicant all sums
representing Plaintiff/Applicant’s one per cent (1) from the four and one half
per cent (4.5%) monthly commission revenue due the Plaintiff for the months of September and October 2016 totaling which
deductions amount to a total of GH¢516,519.25 (Five Hundred and Sixteen
Thousand and Five Hundred and Nineteen Ghana Cedis and Twenty Five Ghana
Pesewas)<o:p></o:p>In respect of the first application, the court has
examined the affidavits in support as well as the affidavit filed by the
plaintiff/respondent in opposition and the court has come to the conclusion
that, there is no reasonable ground to suspend the order of interlocutory
injunction granted by the court on the 15th July 2016. The
application is therefore dismissed.<o:p></o:p>A critical consideration of the second application,
that is, the application filed on the 23rd December 2016, shows that
all the reliefs sought in that application concerns a stoppage of deduction of
monies allegedly due the plaintiff/applicant and or payment of monies allegedly
due the plaintiff/applicant by the defendant/respondent to that application.<o:p></o:p>The court is firmly of the opinion that no
irreparable damage will be caused the plaintiff/applicant if the application is
refused. On the other hand the payment of monetary damages will be sufficient
to ameliorate any damage that the applicant might suffer should the application
be refused and the plaintiff/applicant emerges victorious after the hearing of
the matter.<o:p></o:p>Accordingly, there is no point in granting the
application. The application is therefore dismissed.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

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