MS. SHIRLEY SANDRA TORSOO & 8 OTHERS (PLAINTIFFS) vs. GOLD COAST FUND MANAGEMENT LTD (DEFENDANT) [2019]DLHC7141

MS. SHIRLEY SANDRA TORSOO & 8 OTHERS (PLAINTIFFS) vs. GOLD COAST FUND MANAGEMENT... [2019]DLHC7141

Date	2019-07-26
Suit No.	SUIT NO: CM/RPC/0489/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7141

HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU J

SAMUEL A. DADZI ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

FREDERICK BOAMAH ESQ. FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2019]DLHC7141
																																						<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" >MS. SHIRLEY SANDRA
TORSOO &amp; 8 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GOLD COAST FUND
MANAGEMENT LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<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/RPC/0489/2019&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
26TH JULY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>SAMUEL A. DADZI ESQ., 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">

FREDERICK
BOAMAH ESQ., FOR THE DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A.
ASIEDU, 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;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>By
their writ of summons the plaintiffs claim against the defendant:<o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; An order for the recovery of GH¢597,785.75 being
the outstanding debt owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs as at 31st
October 2018.<o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Interest on the sum of GH¢597,785.75 at the
prevailing commercial rate.<o:p></o:p>c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Costs (including Lawyers’ fees).<o:p></o:p>d.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Any other reliefs that this Honorable Court
considers just. <o:p></o:p>After
the service of the writ and the accompanying statement of claim, the defendant,
filed a conditional appearance and, subsequently, an application for an order
to set aside the writ of summons and statement of claim and then dismiss the
action on grounds stated in the supporting affidavit. The plaintiffs are
opposed to the application as shown by their affidavit in opposition.<o:p></o:p>The
main grounds upon which the order of the court is sought by the applicants are
captured in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the affidavit in support. The said
paragraphs state that:<o:p></o:p>6. That I am advised by Counsel and believe same to
be true that, the present action arise under the Securities Industry Act, 2016
(Act 929) hence same is premature and the Plaintiff/Respondent ought to have
made a formal complaint to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) who are
its regulators before commencing the present action.<o:p></o:p>7. That I am again advised and believe same to be
true that the Securities Industry Act, 2016 (Act 929) stays the court’s
jurisdiction on matters arising under the Act until such complaints, disputes
and violation have been submitted to the SEC for resolution.<o:p></o:p>8. That in line with the provisions of Act 929, the
Defendant is presently answering to several other complaints of equal nature
before the Securities and Exchange Commission and the present action amounts to
vexing the Defendant in a forum other than prescribed by statute.<o:p></o:p>In
a supplementary affidavit filed on the 29th May 2019, the applicant
further deposed at paragraphs 6, 8 and 9 thereof:<o:p></o:p>6. That I am advised and believe same to be true
that contrary to the depositions in Respondent’s affidavit in opposition, its
contract with the Plaintiff is no ordinary contract, but a contract specially
regulated and situated within a fund management product in accordance with
provisions of Act 92</main>