EUROGET DE-INVEST SA vs. ZENITH BANK GHANA LTD TOP INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING [GH] LTD [2019]DLHC7540

EUROGET DE-INVEST SA vs. ZENITH BANK GHANA LTD TOP INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING [GH... [2019]DLHC7540

Date	2019-03-01
Suit No.	SUIT NO.CM/BDC/0395/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC7540

JEROME NOBLE-NKRUMAH JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

DERICK ANNAN FOR YAW ESHUN FOR THE PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT

SETH AGYAPONG MENSAH FOR THE APPLICANT

[2019]DLHC7540
																																						<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" >EUROGET
DE-INVEST SA<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ZENITH BANK
GHANA LTD<o:p></o:p>TOP
INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING [GH] LTD<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERRCIAL 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">

SUIT
NO.CM/BDC/0395/2019&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;&nbsp;DATE: 1ST MARCH, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:
<o:p></o:p>DERICK
ANNAN FOR YAW ESHUN FOR THE 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">

SETH
AGYAPONG MENSAH FOR THE APPLICANT <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <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">

JEROME
NOBLE-NKRUMAH JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>Motion for Joinder as 2nd
Defendant<o:p></o:p>The Applicant herein has filed the present application to be
joined to this suit as 2nd Defendant to the present suit. <o:p></o:p>This application has been opposed by the Plaintiff Respondent.
I will go straight to the meat of the matter. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Plaintiff has largely argued that the
performance bond issued by the Defendant in favor of the Plaintiff and in
respect of works to be performed by the Applicant ought, in the right sense be
seen as a separate contract as between the Plaintiff and the Defendant
independent of the contract between the Plaintiff and the Applicant. [Potter LJ
in Comdel
Commodities Ltd (1977) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 431; followed in Cargill
International SA v Bangladesh Sugar and food Industries Corporation]<o:p></o:p>Whilst agreeing with the above position
of the law, I take note also of suit no. GJ1437/2017 Top International Engineering
(Ghana) Ltd v Eroget De-Invest SA. This is a matter between the Applicant
and the Plaintiff herein. The Applicant therein has sued amongst others for an
Order for the return to the Plaintiff, the advance payment guarantee and the
performance guarantee issued in favor of the Defendant then and now the Plaintiff.
In this matter the court declined an application to strike out the action
pointing out that the existence of an arbitration clause in the parties’
contract did not oust the jurisdiction of the court. The court rather stayed
proceedings and referred the parties to arbitration. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The parties appeared before the Dispute
Adjudication Board of the Ghana Institution of Engineers. It has not been
disputed before this court that the Plaintiff Respondents did not raise
objection to the award of this Dispute Adjudication Board. The decision of this
Board included amongst others the return of the performance securities and
advance payment guarantees.<o:p></o:p>Dissatisfied with the award the Plaintiff
Respondent herein prayed the court then to order the decision be re looked&nbsp; &nbsp;at by
an international arbitration. This, the court has granted. Then and before the &nbsp;court ordered the parties to the initial
arbitration no attempt was made by the Plaintiff Respondents to have the Applicants
claim iii hived out of the other
claims. Having agreed to arbitration and having presented itself for
arbitration on all those claims, it is strange now that the Plaintiff Respondent
wants to sue on the guarantees in a fresh matter when in deed those guarantees
are a subject of an order for arbitration and then again seek to prevent the Applicant
who has an interest in the payment or otherwise of those guarantees from
joining this suit.<o:p></o:p>I find the present action an abuse of
the process as suit number GJ1437/2017 has only been stayed. It is still
pending only because Plaintiff has sought further action in that matter in
which the Applicant has sued on the guarantees. The fact of guarantees being
treated as distinct from the main contract as between the employer and contractor
does not preclude those contracts from being challenged by the contractor. That
is exactly what the Applicant has done in suit no. GJ1437 2017, which is still
pending.<o:p></o:p>I will in the circumstances strikeout
this action as an abuse of the process and order the parties to suit No.GJ1437/2017 Top International
Engineering (Ghana) Ltd v Eroget De-Invest SA back to the arbitration table
as ordered in that matter.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p</main>