DR ARCHIBALD FREDERICK MCKENZIE BADOE vs. GOLD COAST FUND MANAGEMENT LTD [2018]DLHC3942

Date	2018-12-13
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC 25/2019
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3942

JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE HIGH COURT JUDGE

MARIAM AGYEMAN GYASI JAWHARY (MRS) FOR THE PLAINTIFF

EMMANUEL AMOAH FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2018]DLHC3942
																																						<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" >DR ARCHIBALD FREDERICK
MCKENZIE BADOE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GOLD COAST FUND
MANAGEMENT LTD<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) KUMASI]<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. OCC 25/2019&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 13TH DECEMBER 2018.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>MARIAM AGYEMAN
GYASI JAWHARY (MRS) FOR THE PLAINTIFF<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">

EMMANUEL AMOAH FOR
THE DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE HIGH COURT JUDGE<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>On
22nd October, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a writ against the defendant
for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
An order for the payment of the total sums
GHC328,127.43 (Three Hundred and Twenty-Eight Thousand, One Hundred and
twenty-seven Ghana Cedis, forty-three pesewas) being the principal sum placed
by the Plaintiff with the Defendant as a structured finance investment and
which investment matured on 5th September 2018 and ought to have
been paid to him at the said date of 6th September 2018 but which
sum the Defendant has failed to pay despite repeated demand since 10th
September 2018.<o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
An order for the payment of all sums due
the Plaintiff from the Defendant on the sum of GHC328,127.43 (Three Hundred and
Twenty-Eight Thousand, One Hundred and twenty-seven Ghana Cedis, forty-three
pesewas) stated I relief (a) supra since 6th September 2018.<o:p></o:p>c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
An order for the payment of the sum of
GH50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Ghana Cedis) and accrued interest thereon invested
by the Plaintiff with the Defendant on 24th August 2018 till date of
final judgment.<o:p></o:p>d.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
An order for the payment of interest on the
principal sum of GHC328,127.43 (Three Hundred and Twenty-Eight Thousand, One
Hundred and twenty-seven Ghana Cedis, forty-three pesewas) at the prevailing
commercial bank lending rate at the date of the judgment or in the alternative
at the rate of 27% being the rate of interest the Defendant was paying to the
Plaintiff on his structured investment with the Defendant.<o:p></o:p>e.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Cost including legal fees<o:p></o:p>In
this application, the plaintiff/applicant is praying this court for an order
entering judgment in default of defence pursuant to Order 13 rule 1 of the High
Court (Civil Procedure Rules), 2004, CI 47.<o:p></o:p>The
grounds of the application are contained in the affidavit in support filed by
the applicant on 28/11/2018.<o:p></o:p>The
defendant/respondent failed or refused to file an affidavit in response.
However, after counsel for the applicant had moved the motion, counsel for the
respondent responded on a point of law.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the respondent took aim at the propriety of the application as well as the
processes filed prior to the instant motion. Counsel quoted the Revenue
Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915), <a name="_Hlk532410002">section 11(2) </a>and
submitted that per the statutory provision, the plaintiff/applicant ought to
have endorsed his Tax Identification Number (TIN) on the writ of summons,
statement of claim as well the processes relating to the instant motion on
notice. He submitted that the applicant’s noncompliance with section 11(2)
supra makes the processes filed so far void and invited the court to set them
aside. <o:p></o:p>In
a rebuttal to the point of law, counsel for the applicant submitted that counsel
for the respondent’s interpretation of section 11(2) of Act 915 should not be
adopted by the court. She submitted that the applicant did not issue the
processes himself and that the Act did not say that a party must endorse the
TIN on a process to trigger the jurisdiction of the court. She argued that the
requisite endorsement can be found under Order <a name="_Hlk532416640">2 rule 5
of CI 47</a>. Counsel also submitted that the requirement of a TIN is for the
purposes of revenue generation and just as unstamped documents are admitted in
</main>