NAPEX CONNECT LTD vs. PUMA ENERGY DISTRIBUTION GH. LTD [2019]DLHC8728

Date	2019-10-30
Suit No.	SUIT NO.C2/103/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC8728

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE FRANCIS OBIRI HIGH COURT JUDGE

KWASI AFRIFA FOR PLAINTIFF

QUARSHIGAH HOLDING BRIEF FOR F.S TSIKATA FOR DEFENDANT

[2019]DLHC8728
																																						<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" >NAPEX CONNECT LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>PUMA ENERGY DISTRIBUTION GH. LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<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.C2/103/2019&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 30TH OCTOBER, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWASI AFRIFA FOR PLAINTIFF<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">

QUARSHIGAH HOLDING BRIEF FOR F.S TSIKATA FOR
DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE FRANCIS OBIRI, HIGH COURT JUDGE<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="MsoNoSpacing" 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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp; On
24th October 2019,
counsel for defendant sought leave of pray the court to withdraw the statement
of defence filed on 10th October 2019 on behalf of the defendant.&nbsp; The reason was that, the statement of defence
was filed before entry of appearance was filed on 11th October 2019
in respect of this case.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for defendant further prayed the court to grant the defendant leave to file her
statement of defence out of time.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for plaintiff however objected to the prayer by counsel for the defendant.&nbsp; He contended that, by the rules of court,
counsel for defendant cannot withdraw the statement of defence and ask for
leave of the court to re-file same.&nbsp; Counsel
argued that, there is no rule of law or procedure which allows counsel for
defendant to ask for such prayer from the court.&nbsp; He therefore prayed the court not to entertain
the prayer by the defendant counsel. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;I had the opportunity to hear the submissions
by both counsel.&nbsp; I have also gone
through the documents filed in this case.&nbsp;
The plaintiff issued the writ of summons on 9th August 2019
at 10:30am.&nbsp; She also filed a motion on
notice to restrain the defendant her agents, assigns etc. from interfering with
her work at Adum fuel station Kumasi, pending the determination of the case.<o:p></o:p>It
is not in dispute that, the defendant’s company is a limited liability company
as the plaintiff described it as such in her writ of summons. The defendant is
therefore a body corporate.&nbsp; Therefore,
such an entity should be served through the managing director, president or the
head of the body, or the secretary of the company whose name appears in the
books of the Registrar General Department.<o:p></o:p>See: Ghana Commercial Bank V
Tabury (1977) 1 GLR 329<o:p></o:p>Barclays Bank of Gh. Ltd. V
Ghana Cable Co. Ltd (1998-1999) SCGLR 1<o:p></o:p>It
is only when the writ has been properly served that the jurisdiction of the
court can be properly invoked.&nbsp; Jurisdiction
is the authority of the court to determine matters which are been litigated
before it or to take cognizance of matters which are presented in a formal way
for it to be made.&nbsp; The limits of this
authority are imposed by statute charter, commission under which the court is
constituted.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>See: Yeboah V Mensah (1997-1998)2
GLR 245 SC.<o:p></o:p>Edusei (No. 2) V Attorney
General (No.2) (1998-1999) SCGLR 753<o:p></o:p>The
law is settled that, jurisdiction is very fundamental in every case which come
before court.&nbsp; &nbsp;Therefore, even if the parties do not raise it,
the court has power to question it or avert its mind to same to ensure a valid
outcome.<o:p></o:p>See: Bimpong- Buta V General
Legal Council &amp; Ors (2003-2004) 2 SCGLR 1200.<o:p></o:p>The
parties cannot by consent or acquiescence confer jurisdiction upon a court
where the court otherwise does not have jurisdiction.&nbsp; Any agreement to confer jurisdiction on a
court must be authorised by legislation.<o:p></o:p>See: The Republic V Nii
Adamah Thompson &amp; 10 Ors (2014) 73 GMJ 1 SC.<o:p></o:p>Jurisdiction
is therefore central or the core of every court’s power to adjudicate a case.<o:p></o:p>From
the documents on record, there is a document which is titled: DHL Express
document. It is from; <o:p></o:p</main>