SAO CAPITAL LTD vs. PETRA ENERGY LTD AND JOSEPH KWASI ADDO-YOBO [2020]DLHC9984

Date	2020-02-27
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: CM/RPC/0388/2020
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC9984

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE YAW DARKO ASARE

EBO BREW HAMMOND ESQ. FOR OSEI TUTU BONSU ESQ. FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT – PRESENT

GASPER LYLE NII-AMPONSAH ESQ. FOR DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS

[2020]DLHC9984
																																						<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" >SAO
CAPITAL LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>PETRA
ENERGY LTD AND JOSEPH KWASI ADDO-YOBO<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, 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;">

SUIT NO.: CM/RPC/0388/2020&nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 27THFEBRUARY,
2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>EBO BREW HAMMOND ESQ., FOR OSEI TUTU
BONSU ESQ. FOR <o:p></o:p>PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT – PRESENT<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;">

GASPER LYLE NII-AMPONSAH ESQ. FOR DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE YAW DARKO ASARE<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:normal;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>&nbsp;&nbsp;The instant application has been brought by the
Defendant/Applicants praying for an order to set aside writ of summons and
statement of claim under Order 9 R. 8 of CI 47.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The application is anchored on two main grounds, to wit that the
Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the instant application and also on
grounds of want of capacity on the part of the Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Plaintiff/Respondent has filed an affidavit in opposition
together with a supplementary affidavit essentially disputing the grounds upon
which the instant application has been brought.&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In the first place, the Court would reject as untenable the
Defendant/Applicants’ contentions that this Court has no jurisdiction in view
of the fact that the Agreement Exhibit “JAY1”, incorporated a clause
stipulating Mauritian law as the proper law to govern the Agreement.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;To begin with, the Agreement sought to be enforced in this present
suit is the one dated the 11th of September 2019,&nbsp;and which is
annexed to the Plaintiff’s supplementary affidavit as Exhibit “RJ3”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Significantly that Restructuring Agreement Exhibit “RJ3”, did not
incorporate any clauses stipulating the particular law to govern the Agreement.
There is nothing therefore in the Agreement, the subject matter of this suit,
to oust the jurisdiction of the Court.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In any event, even if any such “governing law” clauses existed in
the Agreement, it is even doubtful whether such clauses per se can operate to
necessarily oust the jurisdiction of the Court. Thus in the case of C.I.L.E.
v. Black&nbsp; Star Line &amp; Another [1967] GLR 744, the Court
cautioned against confusing clauses in a contract which regulate the proper law
to govern the interpretation of the contract with clauses governing the forum
for the prosecution of disputes.<o:p></o:p>