MAHMOUND’S JEWELLERY LTD. v. G. T. BANK (GH) LTD & GUARANTY TRUST BANK (GH) LTD
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP ERIC KYEI BAFFOUR
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Guaranty Trust Bank sought to dismiss a suit and judgment incorrectly served under the name G.T Bank. The court found the entity indeed received the writ, and the correct action should have been to seek amendment of the name, not ignore it. The judgment was not set aside due to proper service and jurisdiction; instead, the court ordered the correction of the name in the documents and allowed the proceedings to proceed. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
RULING
This is a motion by the Applicant, Guaranty Trust Bank, seeking an order for the dismissal of the suit and the subsequent judgment obtained and in the alternative applicant prays for the following reliefs:
i. An order setting aside the service of the entry of judgment on the applicant.
ii. An order to stay the execution of the default judgment entered against the defendant pending the determination of this application.
iii. An order setting aside the service of the writ and statement of claim on the applicant/interested party.
iv. An order to restrain the plaintiff from executing the judgment against the applicant.
In an affidavit deposed to in support of the application by one Miss Chineze Ikeduba, she claims that the processes in this suit has wrongly been served on the applicant who is not a party to the suit and that the applicant is completely different from the defendant to this suit. Besides, that there is no company in Ghana by name as G.T. Bank (GH) Ltd, the defendant in this suit. As there is no such company in Ghana it was not proper for the processes to be served on the applicant.
This has vehemently been opposed by the Plaintiff/Respondent contending that the applicant is only interested in hiding under the veil of incorporation to perpetuate fraud not only on the Plaintiff but on the public as whole. This is because the defendant has always held itself out to the general public under the trade name and logo as G.T Bank. And the applicant herein is the same as the Defendant that has been sued as the two are not two different entities.
In a reply by way of a supplementary affidavit filed in support of the application the applicant admit that the GT Bank that is usually found in a square in the background on its documents as a logo is a registered trade mark of the applicant and was entitled to use that trade mark to promote its business. And that the applicant has always dealt with the plaintiff in its capacity as Guaranty Trust Bank and not G.T Bank.
There is no gainsaying as contended by the applicant that a void judgment ought to be set aside by a court ex debito justitiae. As noted by Akuffo –Addo JSC (as he then) in the well-known case of MOSI v BEGYINA [1963] 1GLR 337that:
“Where a judgment or an order is void either because it is given or made without jurisdiction or because it is not warranted by any law or rule or procedure, the party affected is entitled ex debito justitiae to have it set aside, and the court or a j