DHL GHANA LTD vs. MERIDIAN PORT GHANA LTD [2018]DLHC3484

Date	2018-01-23
Suit No.	SUIT NO.GJ/450/17
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3484

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2018]DLHC3484
																																						<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" ><a name="OLE_LINK1">DHL
GHANA LTD<o:p></o:p></a>vs.<o:p></o:p>MERIDIAN PORT GHANA LTD<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (GENERAL
JURISDICTION 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.GJ/450/17&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 23RD JANUARY, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<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">

HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

</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">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>Defendant/Applicant is praying for an order of the court to
strike out the writ of Plaintiff on the grounds set out in the affidavit. The
essence of the application is that the power of attorney through which the writ
was issued is incompetent as it does not meet the requirements of the law. To Applicant
the attorney is not clothed with capacity making the power of attorney incompetent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Moving the motion in court learned counsel for Applicant relied
on section 1(3) of the Powers of Attorney Act, Act 549 and noted that the
principal, DHL, a body corporate authorised one Eric M. K. Sarbah, who is the
Chief Financial Officer of Plaintiff company to sign the power of attorney on
its behalf. To the Applicant the power of attorney by law ought to have been attested
by at least two witnesses and on the face of the document it is only one
witness that signed the power of attorney.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Plaintiff/Respondent has opposed the application per an
affidavit in opposition contending that the power of attorney was duly attested
to by a witness. And in the written submission filed, counsel for Plaintiff has
raised matters of law claiming that all the authorities are to the effect that
a power of attorney is a nullity only when it has not been witnessed which is
not the case in this suit as the Plaintiff has duly through its authorised
representative signed the power of attorney and it is witnessed by one Jedidiah
Botchway.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Ex ‘IE’ attached as the power of attorney to Plaintiff’s
application for summary judgment, the power was executed by Eric Sarbah on
behalf of DHL in the presence of Jedidiah Botchway, an accounts receivable
manager. Does that sin against the law?<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Powers of Attorney
Act, Act 549 states in section 1 as follows:<o:p></o:p>&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; <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;mso-layout-grid-align:
auto;punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other">(1)&nbsp;
An instrument creating a power of attorney shall be signed by the donor of the
power, or a person authorised by him in the presence of the donor.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
text-align:justify;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;mso-layout-grid-align:
auto;punctuation-wrap:hanging;text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other">(2)
Where the instrument is signed by the donor of the power one witness shall be
present and shall attest the instrument.<o:p></o:p>(3)
Where the instrument is signed by a person authorised by the donor, two
witnesses shall be present and shall attest the instrument.<o:p></o:p>&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;&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; <o:p></o:p>It appears that Eric Sarbah is not the donor of the
power and cannot be within the intendment of section 1(2). And DHL being a
legal persona that must of necessity act through its authorized officers cannot
act personally. In this respect, Eric Sarbah could only have signed the
document on behalf of the Plaintiff DHL and that would mean that the applicable
provision in terms of statutory compliance regarding the formal requirements
for the validity of the Power of Attorney donated would be section 1(3) that
requires that Eric Sarbah acting on behalf of Plaintiff in donating the power,
the document ough</main>