TAFA & CO. (GHANA) LTD. v. TAFA & CO., LTD.

JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.

The plaintiff company has sued the defendant company which is based in Taiwan for ¢200,000.00 being commissions due to the plaintiff company for promoting the business of the defendant company in Ghana.

[p.424]

The defendant company entered appearance under protest, and later filed an application to dismiss the plaintiffs' action on the ground that there is no reasonable cause of action against them. Again it is stated in the motion paper that the plaintiffs' action against the defendant is vexatious and frivolous.

In the meantime, the president and director of the defendant company who was in Ghana to do business at the time the writ of summons was issued and served on him was arrested on an absconding warrant and was granted bail with three sureties in the sum of ¢200,000.00. The president-director of the defendant company is known as Shaw Cha-Chin or George Shaw.

In the course of his argument, counsel for the defendants, contended that the plaintiff company is not known in Ghana and therefore cannot institute this action. In effect, counsel was of the opinion that no such company existed and the only company that did business with the defendants and could possibly sue is known as Tafa & Associates (Ghana) Ltd. Counsel for the plaintiffs replied that the plaintiffs' registered name is "Tafa & Co., Ltd." but in order that this company might be distinguishable from the defendant company of almost the same name Tafa & Co., Ltd., the word "Ghana" was inserted immediately before the word "Ltd." However, by consent of counsel, a certified copy of the certificate of incorporation of the plaintiff company was put in evidence as exhibit E. This came from the representative of the Registrar of Companies who was summoned to the court with the file of the plaintiff company. Exhibit E clearly shows that the name of the plaintiff company is Tafa & Co., Ltd. but was originally called Tafa and Associates (Ghana) Ltd. The change of name took place on 6 April 1976. It is correct that the insertion of the word "Ghana" in the plaintiffs' name immediately before the word "Ltd." means that the word "Ghana" forms part of the registered name of the plaintiff company which of course it is not. There is no company by this name which is a successor to "Tafa Associates (Ghana) Ltd." The plaintiffs' name is "Tafa & Co., Ltd." Be that as it may, this apparent misdescription of the plaintiffs' name has been explained by counsel that the word "Ghana" was so