NANA OSEI AKOTO vs. PRESTIGE CAPITAL [2020]DLHC9174

Date	2020-02-24
Suit No.	SUIT NO. RPC 64/2019
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC9174

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE

ALBERT GYAMFI FOR MARIAM JAWHARRY FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

JAMES ODARTEY MILLS FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2020]DLHC9174
																																						<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" >NANA OSEI
AKOTO<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>PRESTIGE CAPITAL<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), 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.&nbsp; RPC 64/2019&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE:
24TH FEBRUARY, 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ALBERT
GYAMFI FOR MARIAM JAWHARRY FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT<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">

JAMES
ODARTEY MILLS FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT<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">

HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE, HIGH COURT JUDGE<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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
ruling concerns a preliminary legal objection taken to the application for
summary judgment by the plaintiff/applicant herein.<o:p></o:p>The
objection relates to the competence of the application and the suit in general.
It is counsel for the defendant’s/respondent’s contention that the court has no
jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Counsel argued that under section 19(1) of
the Securities Industry Act, 2016 (Act 929); any dispute between a fund
management company like the defendant company and any other person or entity is
to be adjudicated upon, first, by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and
not the courts. Counsel submitted that the requirement under section 19(1) is
mandatory and must be fulfilled before the complainant can bring the matter
before the court.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the applicant is opposed to the objection and contends that the present
dispute does not fall within the scope of complaints under section 19(1) that
must be submitted to the SEC for resolution. He argued that a commercial
contract involving a Fund Manager licensed by the SEC shall not be referred to
the Commission for resolution, as it does not arise under Act 929.<o:p></o:p>In
Nana Osei Akoto v Gold Coast Fund Management, Suit Number OCC/39/2019
(delivered on 2nd July, 2019), this court had cause to determine
whether per the interpretation of section 19(1) of Act 929, a commercial
dispute involving a SEC regulated body such as the defendant and its customer
must be submitted to the SEC before seeking any redress in Court. The court
came to the conclusion that a common law claim for breach of contract by the
aforesaid customer does not fall within the scope of complaints that must be
submitted to the SEC for resolution. The decision was based on the reasons
espoused below and these reasons are applicable to the instant case.<o:p></o:p>Section
19(1) of Act 929 provides as follows: <o:p></o:p>“A complaint, dispute or a
violation arising under this Act shall before any redress is sought in the
courts be submitted to the Commission for hearing and determination in
accordance with this Act.”<o:p></o:p>From
the plain meaning of section 19(1) of Act 929, the SEC is vested with the right
as a matter of first instance to hear and determine various complaints. The
provision is, however, not a carte blanche for every dispute, complaint or
violation involving an entity licensed by the SEC to be submitted to it for
determination. The scope of such complaints, disputes or violations is limited
by the said section to only those arising under the Act.<o:p></o:p>Thus,
in order to cloth the SEC with jurisdiction to hear and determine any
complaint, dispute or violation submitted to it, the Applicant or Complainant
as the case might be must show that such a dispute arises under Act 929. <o:p></o:p>A
provision similar to section 19(1) of Act 929 was the subject of interpretation
by the Supreme Court in the case of Boyefio v NTHC Properties Ltd [1997-98] 1
GLR 768. In that case, the Plaintiff commenced an action against the Defendant
for damages for trespass, ejectment and perpetual injunction in respect of a
piece of land at Baatsonaa within the Nungua Traditional Area which had been
declared a registration district by the Land Title Registration – Declaration
of Registration District (Accra District 02_ Instrument, 1992 (LI 1536) under
the Land Title Registration Law, 1986 (PNDCL 152). The Defendant brought an
action to have the suit dismissed on the ground that since the area had been
declared a registration district the Plaintiff should have first submitted the
dispute to the adjudication committee created under the law before proceeding
to Court as provided under section 12 of PNDCL 152.<o:p></o:p>In
determining the issue, the Supreme Court set out to interpret the meaning of
the phrase “disputes under this Law” appearing under section 12 of PNDCL 152.
The Court in doing so referred to a number of provisions within the Act which
creates a dispute requiring the party to seek redress under the Act before
referring the matter to Court.&nbsp; The
Supreme Court per Acquah JSC (as he then was) interpreted the phrase “disputes
under this law” in the following words:<o:p></o:p>