MET CAPITAL GROUP LIMITED vs. GUARANTY TRUST BANK (GHANA) LTD. AND LINKSFIELD RIDGE REALTY LIMITED [2020]DLSC9332

MET CAPITAL GROUP LIMITED vs. GUARANTY TRUST BANK (GHANA) LTD. AND LINKSFIELD R... [2020]DLSC9332

Date	2020-06-01
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J8/78/2020
Citation No.	[2020]DLSC9332

AVRIL LOVELACE-JOHNSON SITTING AS A SINGLE JUDGE

TONY LITHUR WITH MARK BEKUI FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/REPONDENT/APPLICANT

EDWARD SAM-CRABBE FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

[2020]DLSC9332
																																						<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" >MET CAPITAL GROUP LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GUARANTY TRUST BANK (GHANA) LTD. AND
LINKSFIELD RIDGE REALTY LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(1ST
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<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">

CIVIL
MOTION NO. J8/78/2020&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; &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: 1ST
JUNE, 2020<o:p></o:p>

EDWARD SAM-CRABBE FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" 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>LOVELACE-JOHNSON, JSC:-<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
is an application for consolidation of Civil Appeal No. H/112/2019 filed by the
1st Defendant/Respondent/Applicant in respect of the Court of Appeal
judgment attached as exhibit A with the present appeal filed by the
Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant/Respondent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Clearly
the appeals being in respect of the same judgment delivered by the court of
appeal, it makes sense to hear them together as a consolidated appeal. Both
appeals arise from the same facts, that is, the same commercial transaction
between the parties.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
position of counsel for the respondent is that he would not have opposed the
present application but for the failure of the Applicant to give notice of his
cross appeal as required by rule 9(1) of the Supreme Court Rules CI 16. Counsel
for the Applicant admits that he failed to give the said notice.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It
is this court’s considered opinion that the circumstances of this case being
such that an order to consolidate the appeals in question is the most
appropriate order to make, the non-compliance with rules 9 (1) by the applicant
should be and is hereby waived by virtue of Rule 79 of the Supreme Court rules
1996 CI 16.<o:p></o:p>The
application is granted as prayed in all the terms sought. Further to (d), the
Applicants are to file their statement of case within 14 days of today.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; AVRIL LOVELACE-JOHNSON<o:p></o:p>

(JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT)<o:p></o:p></main>