COMMODORE TEXTILE MILLS LTD. v. BARCLAYS BANK GHANA LTD.

JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.

There are two applications by the defendants asking, that the order of Aboagye J. dated 31 July 1975 be discharged and also that this court do permit the defendants to sell the raw materials in their possession and to credit the overdrawn account of the plaintiffs with the defendants, with the proceeds thereof. The plaintiffs have opposed both applications.

[p.416]

As regards the application to discharge the order of Aboagye J., the substance of Mr. Adjetey's arguments against it is that this court presided over by me has no jurisdiction to discharge the order made by Aboagye J. since such an order would be tantamount to reviewing the order of Aboagye J. The contention of the defendants' counsel is that an application to discharge an order by another judge is not a review within the meaning of Order 39 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L. N. 140A), but is in a sense a fresh application to be considered on the facts now available.

However, I think it is necessary for the proper understanding of the ruling about to be delivered to give a résumé of the facts in this case. The plaintiffs were provided with some financial assistance by the defendants for the importation of raw materials. The plaintiffs say that the defendants agreed to release the raw materials to them for the manufacture of their goods and payment to be made from time to time when the manufactured goods were sold. The defendants assert the contrary and say that the plaintiffs signed a document to make good the amount used for the opening of the letters of credit on their behalf when the goods arrived and that they have failed to pay the said amount. These raw materials are in the possession of the defendants who also hold the shipping documents in respect of those which I refer to as the first lot. The defendants have refused to release the lot to the plaintiffs for their failure to make payment of the overdraft facilities for the opening of letters of credit for them.

As regards the second lot of the raw materials they were originally in the custody of Umarco for the plaintiffs and the defendants assert that in view of the plaintiffs' indebtedness to the said Umarco who were bent on going into execution against them, they were transferred to the defendants as security when the defendants paid off Umarco. According to the defendants this was done with the plaintiffs' consent. The plaintiffs, by their counsel's arguments however, deny this statement b