AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK & 5 ORS vs. PBC LIMITED [2023]DLHC16313

Date	2023-09-07
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/BFS/0555/2023
Citation No.	[2023]DLHC16313

HIS LORDSHIP FRANCIS OBIRI ‘J’.

EMMANUEL TEI AGBAM HOLDING BRIEF FOR BOBBY BANSON FOR THE PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS

NANA YAW OSEI FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2023]DLHC16313
																																						<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" >AGRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT BANK &amp; 5 ORS <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>PBC
LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<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/BFS/0555/2023&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;DATE: 7TH&nbsp; SEPTEMBER 2023<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>EMMANUEL TEI AGBAM HOLDING BRIEF FOR BOBBY BANSON FOR
THE PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS<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;">

</div>CORAM<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;">

</div>&nbsp;<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;">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>On 26th June,
2023 the Plaintiffs/Applicants (hereinafter called the Applicants) filed a
motion before this court under Order 27 Rule 1 of C.I. 47.&nbsp; The motion is praying the court for an order
for the appointment of a receiver to collect revenues which the
Defendant/Respondent (hereinafter called the Respondent) would be paid by COCOBOD
and other sources pending the determination of the case. <o:p></o:p>The motion was opposed by
the Respondent.&nbsp; The motion was argued
for and against on 5th September, 2023.<o:p></o:p>I have gone through the
documents filed in support and in opposition to the application. <o:p></o:p>Under Order 27 Rule 1 of
C.I.47, the court can grant interlocutory order in all cases in respect of an
appointment of a receiver pending the determination of a case. Any of the
parties in a case can make such application before the court.<o:p></o:p>In this case, the amount
the Applicants are claiming from the Respondent is over Four hundred and ninety-five
million cedis (GH¢495,000,000.00) which is quite colossal. <o:p></o:p>In that case, the Applicants
should be assured that in case they get judgment in future, it would not be a pyrrhic
victory or would not be rendered nugatory.&nbsp;
On the other hand, the Respondent also needs money to run its activities,
and also the fact that judgment has not yet been given in the case.<o:p></o:p>The parties in this case executed
a document in 2019 in respect of the consolidated loans from the Applicants to
the Respondent. It has been attached to the application as exhibit CB1. It is
the repayment of the consolidated loans which has given birth to this case. <o:p></o:p>The Respondent in exhibit
CB1 agreed to secure the repayment of the loans with monies it would receive from
COCOBOD. <o:p></o:p>There is no evidence
before the court that exhibit CB1 was obtained by recourse to fraud or undue
influence or duress.&nbsp; There is no
evidence before the court that the contents of exhibit CB1 have been vitiated
by any of the factors which can vitiate a contract. All the parties’
representatives signed exhibit CB1.<o:p></o:p>The law is settled, that
parties to a contract would not be permitted to avoid the contract unless,
there are valid lawful reasons to do so.&nbsp;
It is not the duty of the court to make contract for parties. Therefore,
where the terms of a contract such as exhibit CB1 have been reduced into
writing, the court would interpret them to give effect to the intention of the
parties.<o:p></o:p>See: POKU v GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK [1989-90] 2 GLR 37 CA<o:p></o:p>Again, exhibit CB1 was
executed by the accredited officers of the parties, of whom some are Managing Directors.
They are therefore presumed to be of full age and sound mind. <o:p></o:p>The law is settled, that a
person of full age and of sound mind would be bound by the contents of a
document he has signed, whether he read it or not.&nbsp; This is particularly in the absence of any
requisite evidence that he was misled to sign it.<o:p></o:p>See: INUSAH v D.H.L. WORLDWIDE EXPRESS [1992] 1 GLR 267<o:p></o:p>