To this motion the defendant has argued that the plaintiff has no reasonable cause of action and that filing such motion is an abuse of process.
In his submission, counsel for the plaintiff, Emmanuel Saffa Abdulai brought up five points to argue his case. Counsel argued that the 2nd defendant has a place and are operating in Sierra Leone. Secondly, that they are engaged in substantive, continuous and systematic business. Also, that they are occupying the properties at Koidu town; the issue of reasonable cause of action and abuse of process and finally the lifting of corporate veil.
The counsel said that if the defendant is not registered in the country as put forward by their counsel, it will not have a normal place of business put on it letter head. In addition, counsel said that OCTEA has a business based in Kono though they may not have originally rented the building. He went on to say that the said company hired a president whose function is to operate in the country and South Africa and the company hired over seven hundred staff members as stated in exhibit SEL5 which is a letter from the company to the Labour Ministry.
Though the defendant had argued that the company is not legally registered to operate in the country, the counsel stated that their failure to fulfill legal requirement does not mean that it is not present or carrying out functions of mining in the country.
In the area of lifting of corporate veil, he posed the question: “for whose benefit is the mining being carried out, Koidu Limited or OCTEA?” adding that the court should look beyond Koidu Limited regarding the legality of the company.
The counsel said they have raised sufficient actions for the court to look into.
In his response, the defendant counsel, Basma Macaulay said the originating notice of motion exhibited as AS6 does not contain any matter which warrants the lifting of the corporate veil.
He referenced documents filed in as exhibit by both sides bearing the name Koidu Limited instead of OCTEA Mining Company, adding that the plaintiff had not produce any license in the name of OCTEA authorizing it to mine at the said cite, and that no license have been issued by environment protection agency in favor of OCTEA.
He said the government of Sierra Leone recognized Koidu Limited as the mining company operating rather that OCTEA Mining Company.
Regarding adjournment the judge said she will send notices to the parties.