Try asking the following...
RULING
The present Application filed by the Defendants/Applicants (Defendants) seeks an Order of this Court dismissing the Plaintiff /Respondent’s (Plaintiff) suit for want of jurisdiction.
The thrust of the Defendants’ case is that as part of the terms of the Sale and Purchase Contracts (SPAs) attached to the Defendant’s affidavit as Exhibits PA and PA 1, the Parties had agreed in Article 9.1 that the applicable law in terms of the validity, interpretation and performance of SPAs shall be the laws of France.
It was further agreed between the Parties in Article 9.3 that any dispute arising out of or in connection with the SPAs which the parties are unable to resolve amicably, shall be finally settled by the Commercial Courts of France, specifically in the cities of Lyon and Paris, according to Defendants.
The Defendants contend that the said clauses are conclusive and binding as between the Parties and consequently oust the jurisdiction of this Court.
Defendants maintain that the purported assignment of the rights of the original Party to the SPAs to the present Plaintiff does not in any way change or affect the provisions of the SPAs entered into by the original Parties. For this reason Defendant prays that the Suit be dismissed.
The Application is opposed. The Plaintiff does not dispute the existence or the binding nature of the said Clauses. It however resists the present Application on three main grounds.
The first is that the Defendants by their conduct, after being served with the Plaintiff’s Writ had waived their right to object to the jurisdiction of this Court.
The second is that, this Court, in spite of express the choice of forum by the original Parties, still has the power to assume jurisdiction considering the peculiar circumstances of this case. Plaintiff says that the Defendants are resident within this jurisdiction consequently, a judgment obtained in the France will have to be brought back to this jurisdiction for enforcement. However, it is clear from a reading of LI 1575 that the forum chosen by the Parties under the SPAs is not recognized by the LI. Consequently, it will be well-nigh impossible to enforce any judgment obtained in France against the Defendants who are resident in Ghana and are not known to have any assets in France.
The third point raised by Plaintiff is that the subject matter of the dispute i.e. the vehicles, are within this jurisdiction and the contract also in the English language thereby making this Ghana the most