STATE INTEREST AND GOVERNANCE vs OMNIBSIC GHANA LTD & 2 ORS.

At the hearing of the Defendants’ Application to dismiss the Plaintiff’s suit for lack of locus standi, Counsel for Plaintiff raised a preliminary objection to the hearing of the motion on two points.

The first point relates to the timing of the objection. Relying on the case of GBENARTEY & GLIE v NETAS PROPERTIES & INVETSMENTS [2015-2016]1 SCGLR 605. Counsel for Plaintiff contends that, the timing of the objection is inconsistent with the rules and practices of this Court. In the GBENARTEY CASE, the Supreme Court observed that it was erroneous for the Court to have dismissed the suit after settling issues which could only be determined through a plenary trial.

The second point is that, permitting the instant Application to proceed will be unjust and unconscionable to the interest of the Plaintiff given the fact that the only document the Defendants seek to rely on, in support of its motion (as Exhibit A) is that which it obtained from the Plaintiff’s witness statement.

In response to the first ground, Counsel for Defendants contends that the issue of locus standi goes to jurisdiction and can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Consequently, Defendants cannot be faulted for raising same at this stage. According to Counsel for Defendants, locus stadi once raised and found to be lacking should render all proceedings taken so far null and void and liable to be set aside.

With regards to the 2nd ground, Counsel for Defendants admits that Defendants’ Exhibit A was obtained from Plaintiff. However, he points this Court to Paragraph 9 of the affidavit in support where Defendants seek to demonstrate that the same Exhibit A puts beyond doubt the fact that Plaintiff is not a party to the Sale and Purchase Agreement and therefore lacks the standing to approach this Court for judicial relief.

Now, in the case of the TRUSTEES OF THE SYNAGOGUE CHURCH OF ALL NATIONS v AGYEMANG [2010] SCGLR 717 @ 725, the Supreme Court cited with approval the case of Kabo Airlines Ltd v The Sherriff Court Of Appeal where Gelaga King shed light on the scope of a preliminary objection as follows;

“Let me say at once that the purpose of a preliminary objection as we understand it is to prevent the application in the notice of motion from being heard on the merits either on the grounds of irregularity, or for non-compliance with some legal provision or for some other sufficient reason. The fundamental and crucial requirement however is that the alleged irregularity or defect