AGVAD GHANA LTD. v. TRADING MEDICAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE
2019
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- D. ADJEI, JA (PRESIDING)
- A. LOVELACE-JOHNSON JA
- B. ACKAH-YENSU, JA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
2019
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal, per Avril Lovelace‑Johnson JA, dismissed an appeal by the defendants (a Jordanian medical equipment company acting as Toshiba’s Africa and Middle East agent) from a Commercial Division High Court ruling that refused to strike out Ecomedics Ghana Ltd’s statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action. Ecomedics alleged unlawful interference with its Technical Services Agreement with Belstar Development Ltd—entered with Ministry of Health consent—after the defendants arrived unannounced and commenced maintenance at Korle Bu and other hospitals. Applying Order 11 rule 18 of CI 47, the Court held that strike‑out jurisdiction is to be used sparingly and no extrinsic evidence may be considered; because the pleadings raised arguable issues and would require evidence (including on agency and privity), the case was not plain and obvious for summary disposal. The Court affirmed that if the facts are proved Ecomedics could be entitled to relief, including compensation for loss of commission, and directed that the suit proceed.
AVRIL LOVELACE-JOHNSON (JA):
On 6th February 2018, the commercial division of the high court refused the appellant’s application to strike out the respondent’s statement of claim on the ground that it disclosed “no cause of action” against them.
It is this refusal that has caused the appellants to launch the present appeal on the following grounds
(a) That the learned High Court Judge erred when he held that he could not grant the application unless he saw the evidence Plaintiff intended to rely on in the trial
(b) That the learned High Court Judge erred when he held that he would not dwell so much on agency and its principles in determining the application.
They seek from this court a setting aside of the High Court’s ruling and an order striking out the statement of claim in question on the ground that it discloses no cause of action against them.
No additional grounds were filed.
Order 11 rule 18(1)(a) of CI 47 under which the application was brought states as follows
18. (1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order
any pleading or anything in any pleading to be struck
out on the grounds that
a) it disclose no reasonable cause of action or defence.
The pleading which the appellant seeks to have struck out is the plaintiff’s statement of claim which states as follows
1. Plaintiff is a company registered under the laws of Ghana and engages in the business of medical equipments.
2. Defendant is a company registered under the laws of Jordan and engages in the business of medical equipments
3. Plaintiff avers that it has had a mutually beneficial relationship with a third party entity called Belstar Development Ltd based in the US but with an office presence in Accra
4. Plaintiff further avers that in or around November 2011 Belstar Development Ltd was awarded a contract by the Ministry of Health of Ghana for the supply of various medical equipments for various hospitals in the Country including Korle bu Teaching Hospital, Accra
5. Under the contract, Belstar Development Limited sought a credit facility to pre-finance the purchase and supply of the medical equipments on behalf of Ministry of Health for onward distribution to selected hospitals across the country.
6. Plaintiff avers that owing to the mutually beneficial business relationship between it and Belstar Development Ltd, it introduced the latter to various suppliers of medical equipments which included Toshiba, Fuji Film, and Shimadzu Ltd for the purposes of procu