GEORGE AMOO ESHUN v. YAISU LTD. & S. K. B. MATANAWUI
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- MARFUL-SAU, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- HONYENUGA, J.A.
- DENNIS ADJEI, J.A
Areas of Law
- Maritime Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2012
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellants appealed against the High Court, Sekondi's decision dismissing their application to set aside a Writ of Summons, Statement of Claim, and Summary Judgment concerning a Bare Boat Charter agreement with the respondent over the vessel GRACE A. The appellate court ruled that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant summary judgment in maritime actions as prohibited by Order 14 rule 13(a) of L.I. 1129 and Order 14 rule 12(a) of C.I. 47. The appeal was allowed, and the summary judgment along with the refusal to set it aside was rendered void. The judgment emphasized that lack of jurisdiction renders proceedings void and such void judgments can be set aside at any time.
JUDGMENT
HONYENUGA, J.A.
This is an appeal by the defendant and the co-defendant/appellants against the decision of the High Court, Sekondi dated the 15th day of July 2005. The said decision dismissed the appellants’ application to set aside the Writ of Summons, the Statement of Claim and the Summary Judgment. The defendant and co-defendant/appellants would be simply referred to as the appellants and the plaintiff/respondent would be referred to as the respondent.
The facts in this appeal are that the respondent is the owner of GRACE A (formerly known as M/V LEESI), a Ghanaian registered vessel. Sometime in the year 2000, the parties entered into a Bare Boat Charter agreement for the respondent to take possession and use of the said vessel from the 28/4/2000. The respondent took possession and control of the appellants’ vessel but has refused to honour their obligations under the agreement. The respondent was doing business with the vessel between Benin and Gabon but despite repeated demands to honour his side of the agreement, the appellants failed. The respondent was therefore compelled to institute the instant action. The Amended Writ of Summons was accompanied by a Statement of Claim for the following reliefs:-
“1. A repudiation of the Charter Party Agreement entered into by the plaintiff and the defendant on the 28/4/2000 in respect of the vessel MV GRACE A (formerly MV LEESI) due to the continuous default of the defendant in honouring its fundamental obligations to wit: Paragraph 1(b), (g), (i) and the contravention of paragraph 1(j) of the said agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto, by the defendant (sic).
2. The recovery of an amount of $6,000.00 per month or its cedi equivalent being the fees payable by the defendant to the plaintiff with effect from 28/4/2000.
3. The payment of interest at the current bank rate on the amount of $6,000.00 per month payable by the defendant to the plaintiff with effect from the 28/4/2000.
4. An amount of ¢2million being the consequential expenses incurred by the plaintiff in his bid to recovering the fees being owed by the defendant.
5. An order of the court to be directed at the defendant to stop doing business with the vessel MV GRACE ‘A’ and also to bring the said vessel into the jurisdiction of the court during pendency of this action.
6. Any other relief which this Honourable Court may deem fit”.
The appellant entered appearance under protest but failed to move the court within the 14 da