NDK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD vs. WILLIAM CONSTRUCTION LTD. & 5 OTHERS [2017]DLHC9183

Date	2017-11-03
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/BFS/0565/16
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC9183

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE JENNIFER ABENA DADZIE

KWAME AMENANO-TANNOR ESQ. PEASAH-BOADU & CO. ACCRA COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

K.K AMOAH ESQ. BENTUM AMOAH & CO. ACCRA COUNSEL FOR 1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS

SHADRACK ARHIN ESQ. CORPORATE LEGAL CONCEPTS ACCRA COUNSEL FOR 4TH DEFENDANT

ATTORNEY GENERAL CIVIL DIVISION MINISTRY OF JUSTICE ACCRA COUNSEL FOR 5TH AND 6TH DEFENDANTS

[2017]DLHC9183
																																						<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" >NDK
FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>WILLIAM
CONSTRUCTION LTD. &amp; 5 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO.
CM/BFS/0565/16&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
3RD NOVEMBER, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWAME AMENANO-TANNOR,
ESQ., PEASAH-BOADU &amp; CO., ACCRA, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF<o:p></o:p>K.K AMOAH, ESQ.,
BENTUM, AMOAH &amp; CO., ACCRA, COUNSEL FOR 1ST AND 2ND
DEFENDANTS<o:p></o:p>SHADRACK ARHIN, ESQ.,
CORPORATE LEGAL CONCEPTS, ACCRA, COUNSEL FOR 4TH DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>ATTORNEY GENERAL,
CIVIL DIVISION, MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, ACCRA, COUNSEL FOR 5TH AND 6TH
DEFENDANTS<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

HER
LADYSHIP JUSTICE JENNIFER ABENA DADZIE<o:p></o:p>

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before me is a motion on notice filed by
Counsel on behalf of 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Applicants
praying this Honourable Court for an Order to Strike out the names of the 2nd
and 3rd Defendants from the instant suit under Order 4 Rule 5(2)(a) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004,
C.I. 47 (hereinafter, “C.I. 47”).&nbsp;
The grounds for this prayer are contained in the affidavit filed in
support of this motion.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is the case of the 2nd and 3rd
Defendants that they are the Directors of the 1st Defendant Company.&nbsp; They contend that the 1st
Defendant Company has a legal personality separate from its directors.&nbsp; For this reason, they contend further that they,
as directors, should not be held liable for the default of the 1st
Defendant in repaying the credit facility that was advanced to it by the
Plaintiff.&nbsp; The 2nd and 3rd
Defendants further argue that from the pleadings contained in the Statement of
claim, the Plaintiff knew who they were dealing with when it proceeded to
transact the business with the Defendants excluding the 2nd and 3rd
Defendants.&nbsp; For these reasons, the 2nd
and 3rd Defendants contend that they have been improperly and
unnecessarily joined to the suit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In opposing this application, the Plaintiff
argues that on a proper reading of the entire Statement of Claim it reveals
that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants were not only merely
directors of the 1st Defendant Company, but the repayment of the
facility together with interest was secured by a Deed of Guarantee dated June
29, 2015 and executed by the 2nd and 3rd Defendants in
favour of the Plaintiff for the benefit of the 1st Defendant.&nbsp; According to Plaintiff, this averment is
contained in the paragraph (23) of its Statement of Claim.&nbsp; This Deed of Guarantee is marked as Exhibit
“A1” and is attached to the supplementary affidavit filed by the Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I
have given thoughtful consideration to the provisions of the C.I. 47, the case
law and the principles governing the grant or otherwise of an Order to Strike
out a party to a suit. &nbsp;I have also
examined the written submission filed by counsel for Plaintiff in this matter
setting out the position of its client on this matter. &nbsp;It is noted that counsel for the 2nd and 3rd
Defendants/Applicants failed to comply with the order of the Court regarding
the filing of written submissions.&nbsp; Be
that as it may, I find it desirable at this stage to reproduce the relevant
extract from the C.I 47, which in Order 4 r 5(2) (a) provides as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1">(2)&nbsp;&nbsp;
At any stage of proceedings the Court
may on such terms as it thinks just either of its own motion or on application<o:p></o:p>