KWASI ADDO (Trading under the name and style Power-Soft Systems) vs. MULTICHOICE GH. LTD AND ETRANZACT LTD [2018]DLHC10127

KWASI ADDO (Trading under the name and style Power-Soft Systems) vs. MULTICHOIC... [2018]DLHC10127

Date	2018-11-02
Suit No.	CM/BDC/0858/16
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC10127

JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI J.

MS. VIDA AKANELSI (HOLDING THE BRIEF OF SAMUEL CODJOE) FOR PLAINTIFF

DENNIS ARMAH (HOLDING THE BRIEF OF ANTHONY FORSON JR) FOR 1ST DEFENDANT

HANS AWUDE FOR 2ND DEFENDANT

[2018]DLHC10127
																																						<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" >KWASI ADDO (Trading under the name
and style Power-Soft Systems)<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MULTICHOICE GH. LTD AND ETRANZACT LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT
(COMMERCIAL, 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>MS. VIDA AKANELSI
(HOLDING THE BRIEF OF SAMUEL CODJOE) FOR PLAINTIFF <o:p></o:p>DENNIS ARMAH
(HOLDING THE BRIEF OF ANTHONY FORSON JR) FOR 1ST DEFENDANT<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">HANS
AWUDE FOR 2ND DEFENDANT<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; Though the facts in the suit are wide and
extensive, indeed contrasting; culminating in like manner varied issues that
the pretrial court set down for trial, my candid opinion nonetheless is that,
the main issue, indeed the principle of law at the heart of the contestation
involves and indeed revolves largely around the primary issue of whether from
the relationship of the parties in the suit, there can be found a valid
enforceable contract that can form the basis of the suit.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;1.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The parties in the suit are into the
electronic information and tele communication industry. Plaintiff is an
individual. He commenced the suit under the business name PowerSoft Systems. He
claims to be the proprietor of the enterprise. Defendants are corporate
entities who respectively provide television subscription management services
for Multichoice Africa Limited, and electronic transaction payment processing
platform. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;2.0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Plaintiff’s
case&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>2.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The facts of plaintiff’s case are long
and unending. Briefly, his case is that he approached 1st defendant
around 2014 with a proposal to develop an e-payment system as a value-added
service provider to enable 1st defendant’s customers use scratch
cards for payment of subscription bills. Based upon the approach or meeting, 1st
defendant directed and referred him to 2nd defendant, who expressed
interest and agreed to his proposal to develop the e-payment system for the use
and benefit of 1st defendant.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;2.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Upon positive response from 2nd
defendant, he claims to have commenced work on developing the e-payment solution
proposal with the consent, support and collaboration of the defendants at every
stage of development and test stages of the system covering a period of two
years culminating in the pilot sale of the product scratch cards. The pilot
sale of the cards, he says developed some technical hitches in the nature of
duplication of payment on 2nd defendant’s system.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;2.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Plaintiff states further that during the
course of the pilot sales, he sought from 2nd defendant, a
database of customers of 1st defendant to enable it advertise
and subsequently roll out the service widely, but 2nd defendant informed
him to seek and request the said database directly from 1st defendant
and to demonstrate how the service works to 1st defendant. He could
not, as he wanted to address the technical hitches in the nature of duplication
he had discovered on the system before he could demonstrate the functionality
of his product to 1st defendant. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;2.4&n</main>