ERDMAC COMPANY LTD vs. ZENITH BANK PLC & ANOR. [2023]DLHC15115

Date	2023-05-03
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/OCC/0701/2022
Citation No.	[2023]DLHC15115

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE FRANCIS OBIRI J.

OSEI-OWUSU FOR THE PLAINTIFF

GODWIN DJOKOTO FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT

KWAME BOAFO AKUFFO FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT

[2023]DLHC15115
																																						<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" >ERDMAC
COMPANY LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ZENITH BANK
PLC &amp; ANOR.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<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: 0in 0in 1pt;">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>OSEI-OWUSU FOR THE PLAINTIFF<o:p></o:p>GODWIN DJOKOTO FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT<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: 0in 0in 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:150%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">KWAME BOAFO AKUFFO FOR THE
2ND DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

</div><span lang="en-DE" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:#2000">CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE FRANCIS OBIRI J.,<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 0in;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:150%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;I have listened to the
submissions by counsel for the 2nd Defendant as well as the Plaintiff.
It is trite law that cost follows the event. It is also trite law that costs
are at the discretion of the Court. The Court has power to determine to what
extent the costs are to be paid and by whom under Order 74 rule 1 of C.I. 47.
Indeed, save for a good reason, an innocent party or a successful party in a
case or in an application must be entitled to cost. <o:p></o:p>See: EID v EID AND ANOTHER [1979] GLR 290 CA<o:p></o:p>AFEKE v AGBLE [1987-1988] 2 GLR 572 CA<o:p></o:p>APAU II v DWUMAA II [1959] GLR 140 CA<o:p></o:p>I have indicated that
award of cost is not as of right but at the Court’s discretion which must be
paid by the unsuccessful party to the successful party. However, it must not be
too punitive.<o:p></o:p>See: BANK OF WEST AFRICA LIMITED v DARKO [1970] CC 74 CA<o:p></o:p>However, the Court will
determine whether a party is entitled to cost and if so, how much a party is entitled
to, depending on the circumstances of the case. This may include the conduct of
the parties, the conduct of a lawyer in the case and so on. In fact, the
conduct of a lawyer can enable the Court to award cost and direct that the cost
should be paid by the lawyer personally under Order 74 rule 9 of C.I. 47. <o:p></o:p>See also, REPUBLIC v HIGH COURT (HUMAN RIGHTS
DIVISION), ACCRA EX PARTE SWAYNE (AMOABENG - INTERESTED PARTY) [2015-2016] 2
SCGLR 1130<o:p></o:p>It is true that in this
case, even an adjournment of the case caused counsel for the 2nd
Defendant to file an appeal against it on 1st February, 2023. He
then proceeded to file Stay of Proceedings in respect of the Court’s order adjourning
the case from 1st February, 2023 to 2nd February, 2022 for
a ruling to be deliv</main>