ZUSCO COMPANY LIMITED vs VIVO ENERGY GHANA LIMITED & ANOR.

Counsel for Defendant in the Original/Suit and Plaintiff by Counterclaim at the close of the case of Plaintiff in the Original Suit and 2nd Defendant by Counterclaim has prayed the Court to exercise its discretion under Section 69 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) to open his case because Defendant in the Original Suit (Plaintiff by Counterclaim) opens and closes its case before the 1st Defendant by Counsel for Counterclaim, there is a high likelihood that Plaintiff in the Original/Suit (and 2nd Defendant by Counterclaim) who will have the right to cross examine the said 1st Defendant by Counsel for Counterclaim will use the opportunity to reconstruct its case under the guise of cross examination thereby undermining the gains made by Defendant in the Original/Suit (and Plaintiff by Counterclaim).

That this is especially so as the pleadings do not demonstrate that 1st Defendant by Counterclaim and Plaintiff in the Original Suit (and 2nd Defendant by Counterclaim) have adverse claims.

Careful consideration has been given to the submissions made by Counsel for Plaintiff in the Original Suit (and 2nd Defendant by Counsel for Counterclaim).

From the pleadings, Plaintiff in the Original Suit (and 2nd Defendant by Counterclaim) seeks for an Order to be made in its favour against 1st Defendant by Counterclaim (who was the Managing Director of the Plaintiff in the Original Suit) in his personal capacity.

Plaintiff in the Original Suit (and 2nd Defendant by Counterclaim) alleges that the Agreements, the subject matter of the instant action was between Defendant in the Original Suit (and Plaintiff by Counterclaim) and 1st Defendant by Counterclaim in his personal capacity.

This was denied by Defendant in the Original Suit (and Plaintiff by Counterclaim) who alleged that the Parties dealt with each other with the understanding that the Agreement was for the benefit of Plaintiff in the Original Suit and not for 1st Defendant by Counterclaim in his personal capacity.

1st Defendant by Counterclaim in his defence to the Counterclaim denied ever benefitting from the said Agreements in his personal capacity.

In summary, whilst Plaintiff in the Original Suit alleged that the said Agreement was between Defendant in the Original Suit (and Plaintiff by Counterclaim) and the 1st Defendant by Counterclaim in his personal capacity, 1st Defendant by Counterclaim denied so the Court is of the opinion that these Two (2) Parties (Plaintiff in the Original Suit and 2nd Defend