CARBON COMMODITIES DMCC vs. TRUST LINK [2021]DLCA11553

Date	2021-04-22
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/63/2020
Citation No.	[2021]DLCA11553

LAWRENCE L. MENSAH JA (PRESIDING)

ERIC BAAH JA

ADJEI FRIMPONG JA

NANA AMA STEPHENS FOR RESPONDENT

STEPHEN SOWAH CHARWAY FOR APPELLANT

[2021]DLCA11553
																																						<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" >CARBON COMMODITIES DMCC<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>TRUST LINK<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<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. H1/63/2020&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; DATE: 22ND APRIL, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>NANA AMA STEPHENS FOR RESPONDENT<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">STEPHEN SOWAH CHARWAY FOR
APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>LAWRENCE L. MENSAH JA (PRESIDING), ERIC BAAH
JA, ADJEI FRIMPONG JA<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;ADJEI FRIMPONG JA:<o:p></o:p>At
the heart of this appeal lies the question of waiver of an arbitration
agreement which in effect, precludes a party’s right to apply for stay of
proceedings, for purposes of reference to arbitration of a matter commenced at
the court.<o:p></o:p>In
the trial court, it was the defendant/appellant (herein “the appellant”) who
had applied to stay proceedings and have the matter referred to arbitration
which application was, of course, resisted by the plaintiff/respondent (herein
“the respondent”).<o:p></o:p>The events
preceding the commencement of the action at the trial court are not too crucial
to the determination of this appeal. Suffice it to state that the parties had a
contract for the sale and supply of fish to be delivered by the respondent to
the appellant.<o:p></o:p>It
was not in any dispute that the contract of sale which was in writing had an
arbitration clause. Attached to the affidavit of the appellant in support of
the application as Exhibit “TL”, the contract contained the agreement of the parties
thus; any dispute arising between them out of, or in connection with the
agreement shall be submitted to an arbitral tribunal with a seat in Zurich.<o:p></o:p>Upon
a claim that the appellant had defaulted in paying for the fish delivered in
terms of the agreement, the respondent commenced the suit at the High Court,
Commercial Division, Accra, to recover the sum due.<o:p></o:p>Upon
service of the writ of summons and statement of claim on the appellant, it
first caused a conditional appearance to be entered on its behalf. Without any
pursuant application as expected under the High Court (Civil procedure) Rules,
C.I 47 (2004) (as amended), it proceeded to file a defence with a counterclaim
which was later to be amended. We shall later in this discourse, attend to the
statement of defence and counterclaim as amended, in some detail. The
appellant’s argument before us is mainly rooted in an averment contained
therein. <o:p></o:p>Upon
the processes that followed the above, pleadings closed, and in accordance with
the rules applicable in the Commercial Court pursuant to Order 58 rule 4, C.I
47 (as amended), the suit was referred to a pre-trial judge to conduct a
pre-trial settlement conference. Settlement however failed, following which
issues for trial were agreed and set down by the pre-trial judge. The matter
was subsequently referred to the Learned trial judge who ordered the parties to
file their witness statements. The respondent complied with the order. The
appellant who did not, instead, invoked the arbitration clause as basis to file
an application for stay of proceedings for reference of the parties to
arbitration. <o:p></o:p>Even
prior to the subject application, the appellant had filed two applications, one
for discovery of documents which succeeded and the other for security for costs
which failed.<o:p></o:p>In
the light of the foregoing processes and engagements, the Learned trial judge
concluded that the parties had mutually waived their arbitration agreement. She
relied extensively on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of DESIMONE LIMITED VRS OLAM GHANA LIMITED
Civil Appeal J4/03/2018/ (26TH March 2018) now reported in the 2017-2018
Volume 1 SCGLR at page 286 and without much difficulty, dismissed the
application to stay proceedings. <o:p></o:p>Dissatisfied
with this conclusion, the appellant appeals in this court. The two grounds of
appeal listed are as follows:<o:p></o:p>(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The learned trial judge erred in holding
that the defendant/appellant had waived its right to arbitration when on the
face of the record, the defendant/appellant had specifically pleaded the issue
of arbitration in its statement of defence.<o:p></o:p>(ii)