GHANA TELECOM CO. LIMITED vs. INTERNET GHANA CO. LIMITED AND INTERNET GHANA CO. LIMITED vs. GHANA TELECOM CO. LIMITED [2020]DLHC10110

GHANA TELECOM CO. LIMITED vs. INTERNET GHANA CO. LIMITED AND INTERNET GHANA CO... [2020]DLHC10110

Date	2020-01-09
Suit No.	SUIT NO. AC 49/2007 SUIT NO. RPC/48/2012
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC10110

JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI J.

MS. EMMA OWUSU MARFO (HOLDING THE BRIEF OF KWAKU GYAU BARFOUR) FOR GHANA TELECOM

JOEL ANNOR AFARI (HOLDING THE BRIEF OF BENSON NUTSUPUI) FOR INTERNET GHANA

[2020]DLHC10110
																																						<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" >GHANA TELECOM CO. LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>INTERNET GHANA CO. LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>AND<o:p></o:p>INTERNET GHANA CO. LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA TELECOM CO. LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT
(COMMERCIAL 5) 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="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT
NO. AC 49/2007 SUIT NO. RPC/48/2012&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 9TH JANUARY 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MS. EMMA OWUSU
MARFO (HOLDING THE BRIEF OF KWAKU GYAU BARFOUR) FOR GHANA TELECOM<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="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JOEL
ANNOR AFARI (HOLDING THE BRIEF OF BENSON NUTSUPUI) FOR INTERNET GHANA<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE GEORGE
BUADI J.<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="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;1.0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Background<o:p></o:p>1.1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Technology presently controls the world,
dictating the pace and space of means and mode of delivery of all kinds of
services, including telecommunication (telecom) services. In Ghana, barely two
decades ago, provision of multimedia internet services to homes, offices and
educational institutions was largely by the use of and reliance on Asymmetric Digital
Subscriber Line (ADSL) technology; one that relies mainly on existing Ghana
Telecom (GT) subscriber telephone copper line infrastructure for simultaneous
delivery of telephone and internet services. With the advent and predominant reliance
presently of wireless technology based largely on and facilitated by extensive
network of fixed antennae on telecom base stations that relay information and
data through radio-frequency radiation, ADSL technology<a href="file:///C:/Users/aggie/Desktop/2020-21/Criminal/Ghana%20Telecom%20v%20Internet%20Ghana%20(Autosaved)%20(Autosaved)%20(2021_01_25%2010_26_20%20UTC).docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a> had
virtually been dust binned.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;1.2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This suit arises from, indeed steeped within
the era of ADSL technology, which I reiterate was structurally operational on
the use of and reliance on existing subscriber telephone copper lines as
effective means for simultaneous delivery of telephone and internet services in
homes, offices and educational institutions in Ghana. The parties in the suit were
at all material time at the fore-front in their respective operations in the
industry, dictating the pace and space in the provision of telecom and internet
services in Ghana. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;1.3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This is a consolidated suit. It calls for
the construction of contractual, indeed collaborative business agreements the
parties executed. GT’s claim simply is for recovery of monies, or payment of
services it had rendered under the agreement. Internet Ghana’s (IG) claim is that
GT had breached the collaborative agreement, indeed rendered the agreement to
be an unfair, suffocating and competitive one. GT was first to issue writ against
IG: that was on 23 January 2007. Defendant IG counterclaimed in that suit.
Nonetheless, five years later, i.e. 21 December 2012, whilst GT’s suit against
IG was pending and yet to be determined, IG filed a fresh suit against GT based
clearly on the same collaborative agreement. The two suits trudged along in separate
or different courts until upon application and by the hand and order of Her Ladyship,
the Chief Justice both were transferred to be tried at the Commercial Court.
Later the court deemed it fit to consolidate the suits to be tried together.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;2.0&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Parties’
statements of case.<o:p></o:p>