UNICHEM GH LTD & ANOR (PLAINTIFFS) vs. METROPOLIS HEALTH CARE (MAURITIUS) LTD. & ANOR (DEFENDANTS) [2018]DLHC7251

UNICHEM GH LTD & ANOR (PLAINTIFFS) vs. METROPOLIS HEALTH CARE (MAURITIUS) LTD. &... [2018]DLHC7251

Date	2018-11-01
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/BDC/0161/18
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC7251

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).

DR. KWAKU AINUSON FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS

KIMATHI KUENYEHIA FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

[2018]DLHC7251
																																						<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" >UNICHEM GH
LTD &amp; ANOR<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>METROPOLIS
HEALTH CARE (MAURITIUS) LTD. &amp; ANOR<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[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">

SUIT
NO. CM/BDC/0161/18&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 1ST
NOVEMBER, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>DR.
KWAKU AINUSON FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS<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">

KIMATHI
KUENYEHIA FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).<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="margin-bottom:0in;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:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>The 1st and 2nd
Defendants Applicants (hereafter referred to as Applicants) pray by this
application for an Order staying proceedings in the matter and for a further
order referring parties to arbitration.&nbsp;
The main contention of the Applicants is that by the agreements entered
into by the parties herein, the parties are mandated to submit all disputes
arising out of these agreements to arbitration in Mauritius. <o:p></o:p>The Defendants/Respondents (herein
after called the Respondents) resist the application on the ground that the
purported agreement upon which the Applicant took over 1st
Respondent Company was procured fraudulently and that the Respondents are not
bound by the contents of the said purported Agreement.<o:p></o:p>The core issue which I am called upon
to adjudicate in this application is as to whether or not this is a proper case
for the Court to refer the parties to arbitration.<o:p></o:p>I have read the application and the
Affidavits filed by both parties in support of their respective case.&nbsp; I have also read the written submissions filed
by both Counsel.&nbsp; Regard has been given
to the principles governing the factors which a Court must consider in matters
of this nature.&nbsp; It is however useful for
me to place emphasis on the fact that the Respondents core contention that the
signature on the agreement was forged and therefore not binding on them raises
a preliminary issue which must be resolved before a decision is made in respect
of the arbitration clause.<o:p></o:p>It is noted that forgery is a criminal
offence and the burden of its proof in a civil case lies on the Party who
alleges that such crime has been committed.&nbsp;
The Party who alleges forgery must prove it beyond reasonable
doubt.&nbsp; Section 13(1) of the Evidence
Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) provide that:<o:p></o:p>“13(1)&nbsp;
In any civil or criminal action the burden of persuasion as to the
commission by a Party of a crime which is in issue requires proof beyond a
reasonable doubt.”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;From
this provision there is no doubt that where in a civil case it is alleged that
a crime has been committed, that allegation should be proved to the same
standard or degree as the onus of proof on the prosecution in ordinary criminal
cases.&nbsp; The Supreme Court in the case of Susu Bamfo v Sintim [2012] SCGLR held
at the holding (3) that:<o:p></o:p>“The Law regarding forgery or any allegation of a criminal
act in a civil trial was governed by section 13(1) of NRCD 323; that section
provided that the burden of persuasion required was proof beyond reasonable
doubt.”<o:p></o:p>In the instant case, it is my view that
the Plaintiffs/Respondents bear the burden of proof.&nbsp; The section 17 of the Evidence Act, NRCD 323
provides:<o:p></o:p>“17. Except as otherwise provided by
law, the burden of producing evidence of a particular fact is on the Party
against who a finding on that fact would be required in the absence of further
evidence.”<o:p></o:p>The section 11(1) of the Act therefore
provides:<o:p></o:p>“11 (1)&nbsp;
For the purposes of this Decree, the burden of producing evidence means
the obligation of a Party to introduce sufficient evidence to avoid a Ruling
against him on the issue.” <o:p></o:p>