Defendant/Applicant has mounted this application seeking an order for the dismissal of the suit.
The basis of the application, according to counsel for the applicant, is founded under section 3(1) and (4) of the Foreign Exchange Act, 2006 (Act 723)which states as follows: “(1) A person shall not engage in the business of dealing in foreign exchange without a license issued under the Act.
-
The Bank shall prescribe the banks or other corporate bodies or persons that it considers competent to engage in the business of dealing in foreign exchange.
-
The Bank shall issue or renew a licence to engage in the business of dealing in foreign exchange subject to conditions that the Bank shall determine: from time to time.
-
The business of dealing in foreign exchange includes the (a)purchase and sale of foreign currency, (b) Receipt or payment of foreign currency, (c) Importation and exportation of foreign currency, and (d) lending and borrowing of foreign currency”. And under section 29 of the law a transaction in business in foreign currency in Ghana is punishable as a criminal offence upon conviction to a fine of not less than seven hundred penalty units or a term of imprisonment of not more than eighteen months or both.
Plaintiff per the endorsement on the writ claims the following reliefs: An order for the recovery of US$538. 076. 16 being an unpaid balance due and owing from the defendant to the Plaintiff for the supply of teak poles and stay blocks together with interest as well as the cost for the institution of the action.
It appears the action of Plaintiff is founded upon a simple contract entered into with the defendant for the supply of poles which poles Plaintiff claim were supplied.
To him the payments were denominated in US dollars with the option to pay in its cedi equivalent for which defendant has made some payment leaving an outstanding balance of US$538. 076. 16. The essence of Defendant’s application is that the loan agreement he entered into with Plaintiff which he has paid part is an illegal contract by virtue of the fact that repayment was stated to be in dollars which to him sin against the express provisions of Act 723 and hence this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim or enforce the contract.
The Applicant filed conditional appearance and followed it up with this application to set aside the writ.
While moving the application counsel for defendant/applicant could not demonstrate the specific Order of the rules of c
