Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT OF BROBBEY J.
The plaintiff-company instituted an action against the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (hereinafter referred to as S.S.N.I.T.) and Meridian Tobacco Co. Ltd. jointly and severally, claiming certain reliefs as per the writ of summons.
Appearances were entered on behalf of the two defendants on 20 and 23 July 1990 respectively. No defence was filed on behalf of any of the defendants. The plaintiff's solicitor thereafter filed summons for summary judgment on 8 August 1990. It was not until 15 August 1990 that a defence was filed. That defence was described on its face as having been filed by the "solicitor for the defendants." That defence however bore the stamp of only the first defendants, S.S.N.I.T.
Counsel for the plaintiff then commenced arguing the summons for judgment. Before arguments for the summons could be concluded, [p.247] counsel for the first defendant made an oral application. The thrust of the application was that the plaintiff and its managing director have been charged with various counts of doing acts with intent to sabotage the economy of Ghana, contrary to the Public Tribunals Law, 1984 (P.N.D.C.L. 78), ss. 9 and 16, and the facts of the criminal case are more or less the same as the facts giving rise to the instant suit. Counsel therefore argued that the civil action in this court should be abated to await the outcome of the criminal case.
Put simply, the principle which the applicant relies on is this: where a civil case and a criminal case are pending contemporaneously in court, the civil action cannot be determined until the criminal case has been concluded. The principle is ordinarily applied where a set of facts which appears to give rise to criminal charges is at the same time capable of founding civil claims. The commonest criminal cases which at the same time give rise to civil cases are these: stealing giving rise to damages for conversion; libel giving rise to damages for defamation; assault giving rise to damages for assault and battery; fraud by false pretences giving rise to damages for conversion; causing damage giving rise to damages for causing damage; slander giving rise to damages for defamation. This list is by no means exhaustive.
The peculiar aspect of all these cases is that because the criminal and civil cases are founded on the same facts, evidence or exhibits required to prove, for instance, the criminal case may very well be held up in the trial of the civil case and vi