RULING ON OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S CAPACITY
Introduction and Procedural History This action has stayed in the courts for almost 20 years, 19 years to be precise.
The original writ of summons was issued on 14th April 2000 by the plaintiff G. Brands Impex Limited.
The writ was by leave of the court amended on 16th March 2012. Per the said amended writ, the plaintiff claimed the following reliefs against the defendant: i. Recovery of the amount of US$1. 4 million wrongfully deducted by defendant from payment due to the plaintiff or its cedi equivalent at the US dollar forex bureau buying rate on the day of payment.
Interest on the cedi equivalent of the US$1. 4 million at the prevailing commercial banks’ lending rate from October 1996 to the date of payment of the principal sum or in the alternative anticipated profits.
Costs of the action including counsel’s costs.
Trial in this matter commenced on 21st November 2012 before my brother Peter Dei Ofei J. The plaintiff’s representative presented the plaintiff’s case and the case stalled when he was being cross-examined by counsel for the defendant.
When the matter was transferred to me to handle, the parties initially agreed to adopt proceedings for continuation of trial.
There was however a difficulty in adopting the proceedings as the proceedings as handed over, per counsel for both parties, did not give an accurate account of what had transpired in the matter.
The parties therefore agreed that the suit be tried de novo which I obliged.
I therefore directed the parties to file their respective witness statements which they duly complied.
During case management, counsel for the defendant sought leave to file additional issues issue for trial which was granted.
Counsel for the defendant in his additional issues filed on behalf of the defendant on 23rd November 2018, raised the issue of the plaintiff’s capacity to maintain the present action in the following terms: “Whether or not plaintiff has capacity to maintain the instant suit. ”Upon representations made to the court, I directed that the issue of capacity should be tried as a preliminary issue.
I directed counsel to file their legal arguments together with affidavits duly verified and this was complied with by both parties.
Summary of Defendant’s arguments The defendant’s arguments in support of its objection to the plaintiff’s capacity is in three fold.
Firstly the defendant argues that the transaction which eventually led to this action was
