SHIKARI LIMITED. vs. THE BROAD BAND HOME LIMITED [2018]DLHC3354

Date	2018-09-26
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.MISC/0128/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3354

SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

K.O. BOAKYE ESQ. FOR BENJAMIN KPAKPO SACKER ESQ. FOR THE APPLICANT.

MOTHER TERESAH BREW ESQ. FOR KIZITO BEYUO ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2018]DLHC3354
																																						<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" >SHIKARI LIMITED.<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE BROAD BAND HOME
LIMITED<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO.MISC/0128/2018&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: 26TH
SEPTEMBER, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>K.O. BOAKYE ESQ., FOR
BENJAMIN KPAKPO SACKER ESQ., FOR THE APPLICANT.<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">

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

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>By
an originating motion on notice filed on the 16th August 2018, the
applicant, Shikari Limited, a limited liability company registered under the
laws of Mauritius, seeks an order of this court for leave to enforce a final
award dated the 22nd day of June 2018, made under the auspices of
the London Court of International Arbitration, against the respondent, the
Broad Band Home Limited, a company registered under the laws of the Republic of
Ghana. The motion paper is supported by an affidavit and other exhibits. The
respondent is opposed to the application as shown by its affidavit in
opposition.<o:p></o:p>The
applicant says in paragraph 7, 8 and 9 of the supporting affidavit that:<o:p></o:p>7. On April 28, 2014, the Applicant and Respondent
entered into an agreement by which the Applicant agreed, among other things, to
arrange and provide a loan to the Respondent (“the Facilitation Agreement”).
Attached and Marked as Exhibit A is the Facilitation Agreement.<o:p></o:p>8. Pursuant to the &nbsp;Facilitation Agreement, the Applicant further
entered into a loan agreement with the Respondent, in which the Applicant
agreed to lend to the &nbsp;respondent a
minimum amount of USD2, 500,000 plus up to a further amount of USD7, 500,000 to
enable Respondent extract itself from its existing financing arrangements with
their bankers at the time, UT Bank (the “Loan Agreement”). Attached as Exhibit
B is the Loan Agreement.<o:p></o:p>9. Under the Loan Agreement, the Applicant and the
Respondent agreed that in the event of dispute they will subject themselves to
arbitration under the London Court of International Arbitration in London for
the resolution of disputes.<o:p></o:p>Indeed,
the applicant exhibited exhibit A and B, the Facilitation Agreement and the
Loan Agreement respectively.<o:p></o:p>The
applicant says that the respondent company defaulted on its obligations under
the agreements as a result of which the arbitration clause under the agreements
was invoked whereupon the parties proceeded to arbitration in London after
which the sole arbitrator made an award to the effect that the respondent shall
pay to the applicant:<o:p></o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Under the Loan
Agreement, the principal sums of US$5,000,000.00 together with accrued interest
in the sum of US$1,181,002.14 together US$6,181,002.14;<o:p></o:p>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Under the
Facilitation Agreement the principal sums of US$125,000.00 and US$1,500,000.00
with accrued interest in the sums of US$19,367.80 and US$248,540.44 altogether
US$1,892,908.24;<o:p></o:p>iii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
</s</main>