AMENLEMAH II vs. ARIZI POLLEY II AND OTHERS [1965]DLHC1772

Date	1965-05-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1965]DLHC1772

DJABANOR J.

L. B. AKAINYAH FOR THE APPLICANT.

C. A. CANN FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1965]DLHC1772
																																						<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" >AMENLEMAH II <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ARIZI POLLEY II AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1965] GLR 405<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:
24 MAY 1965.<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">

L. B. AKAINYAH FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

C. A. CANN FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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 applicant herein for a writ of attachment to issue
against the respondents herein for contempt of the order of this court dated 13
April 1964. Upon the motion coming on for hearing Mr. Cann for the respondents
raised a preliminary objection that the application is improperly before the
court in that the applicant’s papers are deficient in one particular, namely,
that there is no statement filed in compliance with Order 59, r. 21 (1) of the
Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954.1 This rule states that the
application shall follow the procedure laid out in Order 59, rr. 2, 4, 5, and
6. Rules 2 (2) and 5 (1) are in the following terms:<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">“2.(2) An
application for such leave as afforesaid shall be made ex parte to the Court,
except in vacation when it may be made to a Judge in chambers, and shall be
accompanied by a statement setting out the name and description of the
applicant, the relief sought, and the grounds on which it is sought, and by affidavits
verifying the facts relied on. The Court or Judge may, in granting leave,
impose such terms as to costs and as to giving security as it or he thinks
fit.” “5.(1) Copies of the statement accompanying the application for leave
shall be served with the notice of motion or summons, and copies of any affidavits
accompanying the application for leave shall be supplied on demand and on
payment of the proper charges, and no grounds shall, subject as hereafter in
this rule provided, be relied upon or any relief sought at the hearing of the
motion or summons except the grounds and relief set out in the said statement.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Mr. Cann
contended that in the present instance the applicant cannot be heard at all as
he has not stated the ground of his application in any statement. Mr. Akainyah
in reply submitted that a statement is not necessary where there is a full
affidavit attached to the application, and that a statement is necessary only
if the facts are not within the knowledge of the applicant, and that the
affidavit only repeated the facts in the statement.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In my view
both a statement and an affidavit must be filed as both are necessary and do
not necessarily overlap. The statement states all the particulars requested in
Order 59, r. 2 (2), and also the grounds on which the applicant relies for the
application. In fact an affidavit which merely deposed that the facts alleged
in the statement are true has been held to be insufficient. Examples in the
standard works on court forms and precedents bear this out.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
circumstances I uphold the submission of the respondents’ counsel that the
applicant cannot be heard. His application is therefore dismissed.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>