BABUNTU ASSET MANAGEMENT vs. GOLDRIDGE GHANA LTD. & 2 ORS [2018]DLHC9098

Date	2018-11-14
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/BDC/0158/18
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC9098

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE JENNIFER A. DADZIE

MICHELLE AKUFFO ESQ. AKUFO-ADDO PREMPEH & CO. KWAKWADUAM CHAMBERS ACCRA COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

ALEX OSEI OWUSU ESQ. CARDINAL LAW GROUP ACCRA COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS

[2018]DLHC9098
																																						<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" >BABUNTU ASSET MANAGEMENT<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GOLDRIDGE GHANA LTD. &amp; 2 ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS)<o:p></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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT
NO. CM/BDC/0158/18&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; DATE:
14TH NOVEMBER, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MICHELLE AKUFFO,
ESQ., AKUFO-ADDO, PREMPEH &amp; CO., KWAKWADUAM CHAMBERS, ACCRA, COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:.2pt">

<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">ALEX OSEI OWUSU, ESQ.,
CARDINAL LAW GROUP, ACCRA, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HER LADYSHIP,
JUSTICE JENNIFER A. DADZIE<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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>By
the present application, the Defendants/Applicants (hereinafter, the
“Applicants”) seek to strike out the Writ of Summons issued by the Plaintiff
(hereafter referred to as “Respondent”) as disclosing no cause of action
against the Applicants.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The procedural background to this case in
brief is as follows.&nbsp; On February 27,
2018 the Respondent took out a Writ of Summons against the Applicants
accompanied by a Statement of Claim for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An order for the payment of the sum Six
Million, Fifty-four Thousand United States Dollars, US$6,054.00 being the total
investment sum transferred to the 1st Defendant.<o:p></o:p>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Interest on
the said sum from August 2016 at the prevailing bank rate, till date of final
payment.<o:p></o:p>iii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Damages for
breach of contract.<o:p></o:p>iv.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Any further
orders that to this court may seem meet.”<o:p></o:p>On March 12, 2018, the Applicants caused
Conditional Appearance to the entered on their behalf by counsel but
subsequently failed to file a defence to the suit, prompting the Respondent to
file an Application on notice for Judgment in Default of Defence.&nbsp; On the return date to move the motion for
default judgment, counsel for Applicants informed the Court that the Applicants
had filed the present Motion to Strike out the Writ.&nbsp; For that reason, the Court adjourned the
Motion for Default Judgment to abide by the decision of the Court arising from
the disposal of the Motion to Strike out the Writ.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Court notes that due to the fact that
counsel for Applicants failed to attend Court on the return date of October 16,
2018, when the Motion to Strike out the Writ was to be moved, the Court asked
that counsel for both parties file written addresses to address the Court on
the case of their clients.&nbsp; Counsel for
the Respondent complied, but the counsel for Applicants has since failed to
comply leading the court to conclude that the counsel for Applicants did not
wish to address the Court and has waived his right to same at this time.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I have carefully considered the written
address filed by counsel for Respondent and the pleadings of the
Respondent.&nbsp; Thoughtful consideration has also been
given to the case law, the relevant rules of court procedure and the principles
governing the grant or otherwise of applications of this nature.&nbsp; The Applicants did not state the rule of
court procedure under which they proposed to seek the Order of the Court
striking out the Writ of Summons.&nbsp; To my
mind, this is not fatal as the authorities are clear that a party is not bound
to state the rule under which he proposes to seek that Order and even where he
cites a wrong rule, he is at liberty to correct his mistake and turn to the
right one and the</main>