INGOS CONSTRUCTION LTD. v. BLACKWOOD HODGE (GHANA) LTD.

JUDGMENT OF SARKODEE J.

By this motion the defendants are asking this court for an order to transfer this case to the High Court, Accra, where the defendants reside or carry on business and to be heard there. The plaintiffs resist the application and say that by article 124 of the Constitution, 1979, there is only one High Court of Justice. Also that in view of the facts deposed to in the affidavit, the High Court, Sekondi, is the most convenient venue for the trial.

The substantive suit itself is a sequel to an action instituted in Sekondi against the defendants in the present suit by one Sarah Arkhurst, who was a business partner of Ingos Construction Ltd., the plaintiffs in the present suit. In the Salah Arkhurst case the plaintiff asked for specific performance of a contract for the purchase of a quarry machine and damages, among other reliefs. It came out at the trial of that suit that cheques issued by Ingos Construction Ltd. for the payment of the machine were returned because of statements alleged to have been made by the bankers of Ingos Construction Ltd., which bank was in Takoradi. It was as a result of that statement that the present plaintiffs have instituted this action for libel.

The defendants are a limited liability company registered in Accra where they carry on business. They contend therefore that in accordance with the High Court (Civil Procedure) (Amendment) Rules, 1977 (L.I. 1107), the Greater Accra Region and not the Western Region is the proper region in which the action should have been brought. Quite apart from L.I. 1107, r. 6 they say, they believe that Accra is the most convenient venue for the trial of the action.

Upon a closer look at L.I. 1107 as a whole and, rule 8 thereof in particular and having regard to article 124 of the Constitution, 1979, which provides that there is only one High Court of Justice, it seems to me that the court before which an application is made for transfer of a suit instituted in a region other than that specified by rule 1 (6) of L.I. 1107 has a discretion in the matter. The court ought to look at all the circumstances and decide whether or not to order a transfer of the suit. It seems to me every case must turn on its own peculiar facts but the test to be applied in each particular case, [p.349] where the defendant applies that the matter be transferred is whether the defendant would suffer some injustice if the action was heard in the region where he does not reside or carry on business.