AUDIO VISUAL RIGHTS SOCIETY vs. FIESTA ROYALE HOTEL [2023]DLCA16829

Date	2023-05-11
Suit No.	SUIT NO.H1/88/2023
Citation No.	[2023]DLCA16829

POKU-ACHEAMPONG JA (PRESIDING)

ADJEI-FRIMPONG J.A.

DR. E. OWUSU-DAPAAH J.A.

REGINA MARTIN PEPRAH FOR APPELLANT.

VICTOR LASSEY FOR RESPONDENT.

[2023]DLCA16829
																																						<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" ><div class="WordSection1">

AUDIO VISUAL RIGHTS SOCIETY&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>

vs.<o:p></o:p>

FIESTA ROYALE HOTEL <o:p></o:p>

(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>

[COURT OF
APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>

SUIT
NO.H1/88/2023&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: 11TH&nbsp;MAY 2023<o:p></o:p>

</div>

COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>

REGINA MARTIN PEPRAH
FOR APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>

POKU-ACHEAMPONG, JA (PRESIDING), ADJEI-FRIMPONG, J.A., DR. E.
OWUSU-DAPAAH, J.A.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;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>

Adjei-Frimpong, J.A:<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

This suit
raises an issue of some procedural law importance. In the main, it turns on a
claimant having capacity to sue but losing such capacity after the action has
been commenced. What should be the eﬀect
of such loss of capacity on the claim being pursued?<o:p></o:p>

It is axiomatic
that capacity to sue or locus standi is always a crucial matter in any civil
suit when challenged. For a suit to be competent for adjudication by a court,
there must be at least a competent Plaintiﬀ and a competent Defendant in the
sense that both were juristic persons with locus standi to sue and be sued.
Where the existing Plaintiﬀ or Defendant lacks
competence, it renders the action incompetent regardless of the merits and the
court is robbed of its requisite jurisdiction to determine the underlying
claim.<o:p></o:p>

That the
Plaintiﬀ/Respondent (herein ‘Plaintiﬀ’) was clothed with capacity
at the commencement of the instant action at the trial court became common
ground. The Defendant/Appellant (herein ‘Defendant’) launched the challenge on
the basis that the Plaintiﬀ lost its capacity after
the commencement of the suit and was disabled from pursuing the action. This
contention did not ﬁnd favour with the learned trial judge hence, this
appeal.<o:p></o:p>

The antecedent
events unfolded this way. The Plaintiﬀ,
at the material time a company limited by guarantee
claimed to be a Collective Management Organization (CMO)<o:p></o:p>

mandated by law to collect on behalf
of its members, royalties from commercial entities that publish, display and
exhibit audiovisual works.<o:p></o:p>

It alleged
that the Defendant had published, displayed and exhibited audiovisual works within its hotel premises to enhance its business for
which it was obliged to pay royalties in accordance with the Copyright Act,
2005 (Act 690). The default period was said to be from 2015—2021. The Plainti