F & F INVESTMENTS LIMITED vs. REGINALD TECHIE-MENSON, FELICIA TECHIE-MENSON AND WEST AFRICA DOCUMENT WAREHOUSE LTD [2018]DLHC10103

F & F INVESTMENTS LIMITED vs. REGINALD TECHIE-MENSON, FELICIA TECHIE-MENSON AND... [2018]DLHC10103

Date	2018-06-07
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC/66/2012
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC10103

JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI J.

KWAME NYANKUM TETTEH FOR THE PLAINTIFF

FRANCESCA AWORTWI (HOLDING THE BRIEF OF CHARLES ZWENES) FOR 1ST 2ND AND 3RD DEFENDANTS

[2018]DLHC10103
																																						<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" >F &amp; F INVESTMENTS LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>REGINALD TECHIE-MENSON, FELICIA
TECHIE-MENSON AND WEST AFRICA DOCUMENT WAREHOUSE LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION 5) ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWAME NYANKUM
TETTEH FOR THE PLAINTIFF<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">FRANCESCA
AWORTWI (HOLDING THE BRIEF OF CHARLES ZWENES) FOR 1ST, 2ND,
AND 3RD DEFENDANTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE GEORGE
BUADI J.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;1.0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Background<o:p></o:p>1.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The nature of facts and issues implicated
in this suit has been transformed largely from its original state to its
present state as a result of series of amendments of the writ and statement of
claim by the plaintiff and resultant amendment of the pleadings in the course
of the trial, which invariably had rendered most of the issues the pretrial
settlement court set down for trial presently peripheral, indeed otiose. Upon
reliance of Domfeh v.
Adu [1984-86]
1 GLR 653 CA, I deem it proper to ignore issues I deem irrelevant for purposes
of the present state of plaintiff’s case. The Court of Appeal held in that suit that a trial judge is not required to make findings
of facts in respect of irrelevant matters when such findings would not in any
way assist the court in the determination of the claims and reliefs before the
court. The suit as it stands presently
calls on the court simply to determine largely whether corporate bodies could
enter into oral agreements, and in furtherance thereof whether owners/shareholders/directors
managing the company can be attached personal liability jointly with the
company of the legal implications and consequences flowing from the oral agreement.
<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;1.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Plaintiff is a limited liability corporate
entity, whilst 1st and 2nd defendants are a married couple.
They are also sole shareholders, member directors, indeed the managing
director, and director respectively of 3rd defendant, a local corporate
entity that is engaged in the provision of documents storage facilities and
services. By amended writ of summons and amended statement of claim dated 16
June 2017, the plaintiff’s suit against the defendants is for:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;a&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An [o]rder compelling the 1st, 2nd
and 3rd [d]efendants to pay back to the [p]laintiff the sum of One
Hundred and Thirteen Thousand United States Dollars (USD113,000.00) that had
been paid to 1st, 2nd and 3rd [d]efendants.<o:p></o:p>b&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Any further order(s) as this
Honourable Court may deem fit.<a href="file:///C:/Users/aggie/Desktop/2020-21/Criminal/F&amp;amp;F%20INVESTMENT%20LIMITED%20%20VRS.%20WEST%20AFRICAN%20AVIATION%20(2021_01_25%2010_26_20%20UTC).docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a><o:p></o:p>&nbsp;2.0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Brief
statement of cases<o:p></o:p>2.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Plaintiff’s case<o:p></o:p>Plaintiff’s case mainly
is that after some meetings and discussions between its managing director Dr.
Felix Frimpong and 1st &amp; 2nd defendants in
Johannesburg, South Africa, t</main>