TIAH vs. JOHNSON AND OTHERS [1964]DLHC1957

Date	1964-12-09
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1964]DLHC1957

DJABANOR J.

T. A. TOTOE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

J. E. C. LUTTERODT FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1964]DLHC1957
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >TIAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>JOHNSON AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1964] GLR 661<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
9 DECEMBER 1964.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

T. A. TOTOE FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

J. E. C. LUTTERODT FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DJABANOR J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF DJABANOR J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application by the defendants herein praying this court, <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(a) to
stay these proceedings for a period of one month until previous costs awarded
against the plaintiff in a similar action in favour of the defendants be paid,
and <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(b) to
order the plaintiff to give sufficient security for the costs of this action.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
made the application under Order 65, r. 6 of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 1954.1 Order 65 provides in rr. 5 and 6 that:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“5. A
plaintiff ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction may be ordered to give,
security for costs, though he may be temporarily resident within the
jurisdiction. 6. In actions brought by persons resident out of the
jurisdiction, when the plaintiff’s claim is founded on a judgment or order or
on a bill of exchange or other negotiable instrument, the power to require the
plaintiff to give security for costs shall be in the discretion of the Court or
Judge.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first
part of this rule makes it quite clear that it relates only to actions brought
by persons outside the jurisdiction of the court (vide Order 65, r. 5). Not
only that, but only when the plaintiff’s claim is founded on a judgment—an
order or on a bill of exchange or other negotiable instrument, will the court
order the plaintiff—in appropriate cases, to give security for costs. In this
case the plaintiff is resident within this jurisdiction, and the subject-matter
of the lawsuit is land within this jurisdiction. I think that as in this case
where the subject-matter of the action is land within the jurisdiction that is
sufficient security for costs that may be awarded in the action. The
application for security for costs is therefore dismissed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As far as
the stay of the proceedings pending payment of the costs of the previous action
is concerned I think that the court has an inherent jurisdiction to grant it in
appropriate cases. There is abundant authority for the proposition that the
High Court has an inherent jurisdiction to strike out pleadings or to stay or
dismiss proceedings which are an abuse of its process: Metropolitan Bank v.
Pooley2 and Reichel v. Magrath,3 are just a few.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
inherent jurisdiction of the court to protect itself from abuse is recognised
and extended in Order 25, r. 4 of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure)
Rules, 1954. But the inherent jurisdiction, unlike the jurisdiction under the
rules, is not confined to cases where the abuse is manifest from the pleadings,
but may be exercised where the facts are proved by affidavit which show an
abuse of the process of the court: see the Court of Appeal judgment in Day v.
Hill.4<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this
case the defendant is praying this court to stay the proceedings herein pending
the payment of the previous costs of £G211 12s. due from the plaintiff to the
defendants as the result of previous actions involving the subject-matter of
this suit. The first defendant supported this application with a detailed
affidavit of the facts which the defendants relied upon. This affidavit, which
was served on the plaintiff’s counsel, has not been contradicted.<o:p></o:p>