RENAULT VEHICLES INDUSTRIES v. ASHANTI ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES
1990
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ESSIEM
- AMUAH
- OFORI-BOATENG JJ.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Conflict of Laws
- Contract Law
1990
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal (per Essiem J.A., with Amuah J.A. and Ofori-Boateng J.A. concurring) reviewed an appeal by a French vehicle manufacturer challenging a High Court ruling that refused to set aside service of a writ served out of Ghana. The plaintiffs alleged an agency and marketing arrangement dating from 1976, consolidated in 1984, under which they were to market and service Renault vehicles in Ghana, and claimed $2,000,000 or cedi equivalent in damages for breach. The defendants argued French law governed, that they had no Ghana presence, and that Ghanaian courts lacked jurisdiction. The Court first held the interlocutory appeal was out of time and that it had no power to extend the fourteen-day limit under L.I. 618. It nevertheless addressed the merits, emphasizing caution in leave for service out, Ghanaian jurisdiction based on performance in Ghana, and waiver of jurisdictional objections where defendants took steps after conditional appearance. The appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT OF ESSIEM J.A.
Essiem J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. This is an appeal against a ruling of the High Court, Accra constituted by Emelia Aryee J. dated 27 February 1989. The plaintiffs instituted action against the defendants claiming:
(1) $2 million or the cedi equivalent as general damages for a breach of contract whereby the plaintiff was to be solely responsible for the marketing and servicing of the defendants' vehicles in Ghana.
(2) Further or other reliefs as in the circumstances may appear just.
The defendants are a foreign company resident in France. The writ of summons and statement of claim were served on them outside the jurisdiction of the High Court after leave for same had been obtained from the High Court in accordance with the rules of court.
The defendants thereafter entered conditional appearance and later filed their defence to the action. The plaintiffs filed a reply to the defence of the defendants and thereafter filed the summons for directions. The defendants gave notice to raise additional issues at the summons for directions stage. Their notice was filed on 5 December 1988 at 2.10 pm. On that same date and hour, the record of proceedings [p.445] shows that the defendants' issued out a summons to set aside the plaintiffs' writ of summons under Order 12, r. 24 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A).
The supporting affidavit was sworn to by the defendants' solicitor and I reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the affidavit:
"(5) That in my opinion and belief it forms part of the plaintiffs' case that the defendants are resident in France and not in Ghana.
(6) That in my opinion and belief it forms part of the plaintiffs' case that the plaintiffs' claim for damages arises from an alleged breach of an agreement alleged to have been executed by the parties in France.
(7) That it is my belief that the plaintiffs' claim against the defendants is designated in United States dollars as the appropriate currency of payment.
(8) That in my belief and opinion the defendant-company is a body corporate incorporated and existing in France which has no branch office in the Republic of Ghana, and which does not do business on its own account in the Republic of Ghana.
(9) That for an agreement alleged to have been executed in France by the plaintiffs and the defendant-company, a French company resident and doing business in France but not in Ghana for, as further alleged, the marketing in Ghana of Fr