Areeba’s Action Displeases Co-Defendant

By William Yaw Owusu

Tuesday, 21 November 2006
THE case in which Richmond Aggrey, a businessman, is claiming 20 per cent shares in Scancom Ghana Limited, operators of Areeba mobile phone service, took a dramatic turn yesterday.

This was when Grandview Management, one of the defendants, opposed the stay of proceedings application filed by Areeba, also defendants.

Mr. Thaddeus Sory, counsel for Grandview Management of Texas, United States, who filed an affidavit in opposition on November 16, to strike out Areeba’s move, said the co-defendant’s action "is masked to waste the court’s time and delay the speedy trial of the case."

Other defendants in the case are Investcom Consortium Holdings and S.A. of Beirut, Lebanon.

The court will rule on the matter on December 4.

On July 14, the commercial court F, presided over by Mr. Justice Henry Kwofie, granted an ex-parte application filed by Mr. Aggrey to restrain the defendants from going ahead to conclude a merger agreement with the MTN company of South Africa.

Mr. Aggrey had argued that "continuing and/or concluding a merger with and/or acquisition of Investcom LLC by MTN without taking into account and/or providing for the plaintiff’s 20 per cent shares in Scancom Limited will occasion the loss of his shareholding in the company by reason of the accrual of the rights of MTN Group as third party."

Following the development, Areeba filed an application on July 24 to strike out Mr. Aggrey’s action "in part or whole" on the grounds that Mr. Aggrey failed to adhere to procedures in filing the application.

The court on October 20 ruled that the processes followed by Mr. Aggrey in instituting the suit was proper and ordered Areeba to file its defence within 14 days.

Consequently, Areeba filed a notice of appeal to challenge the trial court’s ruling at the Court of Appeal and another motion on notice to stay proceedings pending the appeal which moved yesterday before the packed Commercial Court.

Mr. Sory said: "We vehemently oppose Areeba’s application on so many grounds. They have not filed any defence but are complaining about our opposition to their application. The merits of the case is what we are interested in and not technicalities.

"We are a party to the suit and a delay will affect our case. We are now starting this matter and at the interlocutory stage the issues being raised by the co-defendant are premature," he argued.

"We want a speedy trial and effective determination on merit and we will never finish this matter if after every ruling, a stay of proceedings application is filed just to delay the trial," he added.

Mr. Yonni Kulendi, who represented Mr. Aggrey, said the fact that Areeba’s appeal "is likely to succeed is not a compelling reason for this court to stay its proceedings", explaining that the court ought to be satisfied that there is a special circumstance to warrant a stay of proceedings.

He said Order 81 of C.1.47 of the new High Court Rules "does not render the proceedings void," adding, "The rules of the court should serve the ends of justice and not defeat the purpose of justice.

"Any loss they will suffer is repairable by proper compensation and the court is being invited to do arbitrary thing."

Mr. Larry Otoo, representing Investcom Consortium Holdings, associated themselves with Areeba’s position.