BILLY JANE vs. GOSSIP BEACH LIMITED, GILBERT NARTEY AND MR. ROBERT JAMES JOHNSON [2019]DLCA10019

BILLY JANE vs. GOSSIP BEACH LIMITED, GILBERT NARTEY AND MR. ROBERT JAMES JOHNSO... [2019]DLCA10019

Date	2019-07-18
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.: H1/140/2015
Citation No.	[2019]DLCA10019

C. J. HONYENUGA JA (PRESIDING)

B. F. ACKAH-YENSU JA

N. C. A. AGBEVOR JA

NELSON A. AYAMDOO FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

HENRY GYABENG FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2019]DLCA10019
																																						<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" >BILLY JANE<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/
RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GOSSIP BEACH LIMITED, GILBERT NARTEY AND MR. ROBERT JAMES
JOHNSON<o:p></o:p>(1ST
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/2ND DEFENDANT/3RD DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CIVIL
APPEAL NO.: H1/140/2015&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
18TH JULY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>NELSON
A. AYAMDOO FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">HENRY
GYABENG FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>C. J. HONYENUGA JA
(PRESIDING), B. F. ACKAH-YENSU JA, N. C. A. AGBEVOR JA<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;ACKAH-YENSU,
JA<o:p></o:p>This is an appeal by
the 1st Defendant/Appellant (hereinafter referred to simply as “Appellant”),
against the decision of the High Court dated 8th January 2015,
setting aside the order of interlocutory injunction granted by the same High
Court differently constituted.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The facts of the case
are fairly simple and generally uncontroverted.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The respective claims
of the Parties herein are based on two (2) agreements that they executed for
the lease, of two (2) properties situated at La and Nungua in Accra.&nbsp; The said agreements were subsequently
re-negotiated and re-defined into a joint venture/partnership agreement with a
profit sharing arrangement.&nbsp; Pursuant to
the agreements, and with the cooperation of the Plaintiff/Respondent, (also to
be referred to hereinafter simply as “Respondent”), Appellant acquired all the
statutory permits to operate as a tourism enterprise and run the property as a
business at the La Beach.&nbsp; In accordance
with the agreement, the Appellant had sole responsibility for the management of
the La Beach property.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;However, on 6th
August 2014, the Respondent commenced an action in the High Court against the
Defendants, jointly and severally, claiming that the Defendants had breached
the lease dated 22nd February 2012 in respect of the La Beach
contract as well as the lease in respect of the Nungua Restaurant and Night
Club contract of same date.&nbsp; She also
claimed that the Appellant had breached the Partnership Agreement dated 1st
September 2013.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Defendants, on
the other hand, contended in their Defence and Counterclaim that it was rather
the Respondent who had breached the agreement with Appellant dated 1st
September 2014, and claimed for recovery of the business situate at La Pleasure
Beach and also for damages, amongst others.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Upon filing the
Defence and Counterclaim, Appellant applied for interlocutory injunction
against Respondent from interfering with Appellant’s management/operation of
the business at La Pleasure Beach.&nbsp; On 26th
August 2014, the High Court granted the application.&nbsp; However, on 3rd October 2014,
Respondent brought an application seeking an order to set aside the
interlocutory order granted against Respondent for lack of cause of action.&nbsp; The Appellant opposed the application.&nbsp; The trial High Court, differently
constituted, heard the application and set aside the earlier order of
interlocutory injunction granted on 26th August 2014.&nbsp; It is the order setting aside the order of
interlocutory injunction that has given rise to the instant appeal.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Appellant filed
the appeal on the sole ground that the Ruling is against the weight of
evidence.&nbsp; The Appellant subsequently
filed additional grounds of appeal as follows:<o:p></o:p>“1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned judge erred in law by
exercising his discretion to set aside the interlocutory injunction which was
regularly obtained by the 1st defendant;<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned judge misdirected himself
when he held that the plaintiff was not aware of the application for
interlocutory injunction.<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned High Court erred in law and
in breach of the principle in Dam v Addo [1962] 2 GLR 200, SC when he
substituted a case proprio motu for the plaintiff/respondent when he concluded
that “Exhibit BJ11” and “Exhibit GB4” are supposed to be the same.<o:p></o:p>