NANA OSEI AKOTO v. GOLD COAST FUND MANAGEMENT LTD.

RULING

On 15th April 2019, Counsel for the Defendant/Applicant (hereinafter called the Applicant) filed a

Motion on Notice to set aside the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed on 1st March 2019 or to transfer the present matter to the High Court, Accra. Per the endorsement on the Plaintiff’s/Respondent’s (hereinafter called the Respondent) Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim the following reliefs were sought:

1. An order for the payment of the sums of Six Hundred and Ten Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC610,000.00) and Five Hundred Thousand Ghana Cedis (GHC500,000.00) which sums the Plaintiff invested with the Defendant company on 18th August, 2017 and 19th February, 2018 and which investments matured on the 18th August, 2018 and 31st October, 2018 respectively but which said sums the Defendant has failed to pay despite repeated demands by the Plaintiff.

2. Interest on the said amounts at the prevailing commercial bank lending rate from 1st November, 2018 till the date of final payment.

3. Cost.

The Applicant herein has filed this Application pursuant to a Conditional Appearance filed by it on the 14th of March, 2019.

The Applicant’s Case

The grounds of the Applicant’s caseas gathered from the affidavit in support of the application and the applicant’s written submission filed on its behalf by counsel are:

a. That the present action falls within the scope of section 18 and 19 of the Securities Industry Act, 2016 (Act 929) hence the Respondent ought to have made a formal complaint to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) before commencing the present action.

b. That the Securities Industries Act stays the Court’s Jurisdiction until all such complaints, disputes or violations have been submitted for resolution.

c. That the proper forum for commencing a suit against the Defendant is the High Court, Accra where it has its registered office and carries on business.

In his written submissions, Counsel for the applicant argued thatby virtue of the structure, organization and operation of its business, the breach of any contractual provision with a customer falls within the scope of section 19 of Act 929 and the need to resort to SEC is backed by strong public policy reasons. Counsel submitted that the present action constitutes a complaint, dispute or violation within the meaning of section 19 of Act 929 and that the respondent ought to follow the procedure set out under section 19. Counsel cited the case of Boyefio v NTHC Properties Ltd