DANIEL OFORI vs. ECOBANK GHANA LIMITED, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND GHANA STOCK EXCHANGE [2019]DLSC6158

DANIEL OFORI vs. ECOBANK GHANA LIMITED, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND... [2019]DLSC6158

Date	2019-02-27
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J7/22/2018
Citation No.	[2019]DLSC6158

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING)

YEBOAH JSC

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

APPAU JSC

PWAMANG JSC

MARFUL-SAU JSC

DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC

THADDEUS SORY FOR THE APPLICANT.

DR. ATUPARE FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT LED BY AMA AMPONSA

NII O. BADOO FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

[2019]DLSC6158
																																						<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" >DANIEL OFORI <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ECOBANK GHANA LIMITED,
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND GHANA STOCK EXCHANGE
<o:p></o:p>(1ST,
2ND &amp; 3RD
DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

CIVIL MOTION NO. J7/22/2018&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;27TH
FEBRUARY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>THADDEUS
SORY FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>DR.
ATUPARE FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT LED BY AMA AMPONSA.<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">

NII
O. BADOO FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

DOTSE JSC (PRESIDING), YEBOAH JSC,
BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC, APPAU JSC, PWAMANG JSC, MARFUL-SAU JSC, DORDZIE (MRS.) JSC<o:p></o:p>

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

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>DOTSE, JSC:- In
this review application, the Applicant herein, who was the Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant
therein in Civil Appeal No. J4/11/2016 has prayed for a review of the judgment
of the ordinary bench rendered on the 25th day of July 2018.<o:p></o:p>BRIEF
FACTS<o:p></o:p>The
facts of this case admit of no controversies whatsoever. In brief, the case of
the Applicant is that, following confusion which involved 14, 130,000 CAL Bank
shares in which the Applicant traded in through his Brokers, at the Ghana Stock
Exchange, matters came to a crescendo as a result of which the Applicant issued
a writ at the High Court, following inability to settle the confusion and or
differences therein. It must be noted that, at the centre of the confusion was
the question whether the trade in the 14, 130,000 CAL Bank shares between
Applicant and the other sellers through their Broker, Databank, had been
settled as at the time of the suspension or that it had failed completely.<o:p></o:p>Following
the failure of the Securities and Exchange Commission the 4th
Respondents herein who are the Regulators of the Ghana Stock Exchange to
resolve the confusion, the Applicant exercised his rights in the High Court to
resolve the differences between the parties.<o:p></o:p>The
pith of the Applicant’s case which he had maintained throughout the case is
that, as at the time the trade was suspended it had settled and concluded, in
that, by then the shares had been transferred into the name of the 2nd
Defendant (William Oppong Bio who is no longer a party) and he had received
payment. The Applicant contended further that, the transaction satisfied the
rules of the stock exchange and was validly traded in.<o:p></o:p>Applicant
contended further that, the funds covering the transaction which were lodged
with 1st Defendant/Respondents herein had been given to him the
Applicant and that&nbsp; he became the
customer of the 1st Respondent bank in respect of those funds,
hence, he initially sued the 1st Respondents alone for his funds
before the Joinder of the other parties.<o:p></o:p>HIGH
COURT DECISION<o:p></o:p>After
trial, the learned High Court Judge in her judgment dated 16th
September 2011 concluded that the trade did not conform to the rules of the
Exchange in that there was no Delivery versus Payment as the payment and
delivery of the share certificates were not effected as at 11 am on the third
day. The court held inter alia that, since the share certificates were not
delivered before the suspension of the trade there was total failure of
consideration so Applicant was not entitled to be paid.<o:p></o:p>APPEAL TO
COURT OF APPEAL<o:p></o:p>An
appeal by the Applicant against the High Court decision was also similarly
dismissed by the Court of Appeal wherein the Applicant appealed to the ordinary
Bench of this Supreme Court.<o:p></o:p>DECISION
OF THE SUPREME COURT<o:p></o:p>On
the 25th day of July 2018, the Supreme Court d</main>