BARCLAYS BANK OF GHANA LTD. vs. CONTINENTAL COMMODITIES TRADING CO. LTD, KUAFO ADAMFO MARKETING CO. LTD., FINATRADE HOLDINGS SA, FINATRADE HOLDINGS LTD. AND MR. NABIL MOUKARZEL [2018]DLHC9107

BARCLAYS BANK OF GHANA LTD. vs. CONTINENTAL COMMODITIES TRADING CO. LTD, KUAFO A... [2018]DLHC9107

Date	2018-01-26
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/0249/2016
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC9107

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE JENNIFER A. DADZIE

MAXWELL K. LOGAN ESQ. WITH SIKA AGGREY ESQ. OF LOGAN & ASSOCIATES COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

SESI TETTEY (H/B FOR SAMUEL M. CODJOE ESQ.) OF LAW TRUST COMPANY COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS

[2018]DLHC9107
																																						<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" >BARCLAYS
BANK OF GHANA LTD.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CONTINENTAL COMMODITIES TRADING CO.
LTD, KUAFO ADAMFO MARKETING CO. LTD., FINATRADE HOLDINGS SA, FINATRADE HOLDINGS
LTD. AND MR. NABIL MOUKARZEL<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
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/0249/2016&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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 JANUARY, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MAXWELL K. LOGAN,
ESQ. WITH SIKA AGGREY, ESQ., OF LOGAN &amp; ASSOCIATES, 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%;tab-stops:298.8pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SESI TETTEY (H/B FOR SAMUEL M. CODJOE,
ESQ.) OF LAW TRUST COMPANY, 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>Counsel
for Defendants/Applicants, herein referred to as “Applicant” brings this
application under Order 75 Rule 6 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules,
2004 (C.I 47) praying the Court for an Order granting Applicant leave to
withdraw legal representation for and on behalf of the 1st
Defendant.&nbsp; The grounds advanced in
support of this application are contained in the affidavit accompanying the
application and the supplementary “corrective” affidavit filed in further
support of the application. <o:p></o:p>On April 20, 2016, the Plaintiff herein caused
a writ of summons and a statement of claim to be issued against the Defendants
for the reliefs endorsed thereon.&nbsp;
According to the Applicant, upon the instructions of the officers of all
the Defendants, they accordingly entered appearance in the suit on April 26,
2016 for and on behalf of the Defendants.&nbsp;
They then proceeded to file a statement of defence on behalf of the
Defendants and in their representation as lawyers for the Defendants, followed
the normal course of the suit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It may be prudent here to give a synopsis of
the procedural history of this case.&nbsp; The
Plaintiff applied for and was granted leave to amend its Reply to the
Defendants’ statement of defence.&nbsp; The application
was not opposed by the Defendants.&nbsp;
Subsequently, the Defendants also sought to amend their Statement of
Defence from stating, among others, that the present sum claimed by the
Plaintiff, being over and above the sum due it under the agreement entered into
between them, the Defendants did not owe the sum claimed by the Plaintiff and
to state that the Defendants did not owe any sum at all to the Plaintiff.&nbsp; The application was opposed by the
Plaintiff.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
ruling on the application, the Court entered an Order for Accounts to be taken
as between the parties because it determined that the matters in controversy
between the parties, mainly, was one of accounts.&nbsp; The Order for Accounts was entered on January
18, 2017.&nbsp; It took the court-appointed
auditor almost a year to complete the accounting audit exercise.&nbsp; The Court will refrain from veering off into
a discussion of the cause of the delay in the conduct of the audit and
production of the report (the “Audit Report”).&nbsp;
On December 15, 2017, the Audit Report was finally tendered in evidence
and the Court adjourned the matter to January 9, 2018 for the auditor to be
cross-examined by either party, if necessary.&nbsp;
On the adjourned date, however, the Applicant indicated to the Court
that they could not cross-examine the auditor because they were now seeking
leave to withdraw their representation for the grounds stated hereunder.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>From the affidavit in support of the
application, the Applicant stated that it had come to their attention that by
an Order made by the High Court, differently constituted, on April 14, 2016,
Messrs Eric Nipah and Vish Ashiagbor were appointed as joint receivers and
managers of the 1st Defendant, and by reason of the law, they are
deemed to have assumed all the functions and powers of the directors of the 1st
Defendant and, in that regard, are the proper persons to take up the conduct of
the suit including the appointment of solicitors .&nbsp; For this reason, the Applicant asserted that
their appointment by the 1st Defendant (and by implication, the
entry of appearance and statement of defence filed on behalf of the 1st
Defendant on April 26, 2016) after the date the honourable Court had appointed
receivers and managers for the 1st Defendant, was void as the former
directors of the 1st Defendant did not have the capacity to appoint
Applicant as solicitor in the case.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>