MENDS METAL WORKS LTD. (PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT) vs. P. T. ODONKOR (DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT) [2011]DLCA7932

MENDS METAL WORKS LTD. (PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT) vs. P. T. ODONKOR (DEFENDANT/RESPON... [2011]DLCA7932

Date	2011-12-07
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/88/11
Citation No.	[2011]DLCA7932

MARFUL-SAU JA (PRESIDING)

HONYENUGA JA

DENNIS ADJEI JA

EBOW QUARSHIE FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

EUSTACE HAIZEL FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2011]DLCA7932
																																						<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" >MENDS METAL
WORKS LTD.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p>P. T. ODONKOR<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, CAPE COAST]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO. H1/88/11&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 7TH
DECEMBER, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>EBOW
QUARSHIE FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

EUSTACE
HAIZEL FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MARFUL-SAU
JA (PRESIDING), HONYENUGA JA, DENNIS ADJEI JA<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>MARFUL-SAU, JA:-This
appeal is against the ruling of the High Court sitting at Sekondi on the 20th
July, 2010. In the said ruling the trial High Court dismissed the appellant
claim under Order 11 Rule 18 on grounds that the action commenced by the
appellant was an abuse of the court process; the reason being that the issue
raised in the action had been determined by the High Court in a matter appealed
from the District Court.<o:p></o:p>The
brief facts of this case are that in 1977, the defendant/ respondent herein to
be called the respondent brought an action against one Mr. Mends at the
District Court, Sekondi and obtained judgment against the said Mr. Mends.
Dissatisfied with the judgment Mr. Mends appealed to the High Court Sekondi and
the appeal was dismissed on the 6th of November 2008. It is necessary to state
that the dispute between the parties was the ownership of plot number 57,
Kokompe Layout, Takoradi. The record shows that at the trial in the District
Court which went on appeal to the High Court, the said Mr. Mends defended the
action by relying on a lease document dated the 25th July 1990 and
made between the Shama-Ahanta East Metropolitan Assembly on one part and Mends
Metal Works Ltd, which acted through its Managing Director, P.K. Mends, the
defendant in the action at the District Court. <o:p></o:p>Then
on the 17th December 2008, after Mr. Mends had lost the appeal in
the High Court, Mends Metal Works Ltd commenced this very action against P. T.
Odonkor claiming the following:-<o:p></o:p>‘’i)
Declaration of title to plots No 54 &amp; 57 Kokompe- Takoradi.<o:p></o:p>ii)
Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents and assigns from
interfering with plaintiffs’ ownership, possession and control.<o:p></o:p>iii)
Order directed at the defendant from doing any act inconsistent with
plaintiffs’ ownership and control of the said plots.<o:p></o:p>iv)
General Damages for trespass.’’<o:p></o:p>The
trial High Court on the 20th July 2010 in a ruling dismissed the action
under Order 11 r 18 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, CI 47. It is
against this ruling that the plaintiff/ appellant to be called appellant has
appealed to this court, praying that the ruling be reversed. In the original
notice of appeal at page 66 of the record two grounds were formulated as
follows:-<o:p></o:p>‘’i)
Ruling is not supported by evidence on record.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;ii) The learned judge failed to have regard to
the corporate nature of Mends Metal Works Ltd as opposed to Mr. Mends as a
defendant in Suit No. E1/5/06 sub-nom P. T. Odonkor vrs. Mr. Mends in a
previous suit.’’<o:p></o:p>On
the 4th of May 2011, the appellant filed additional grounds of
appeal pursuant to leave granted by this court on the 19th April
2011. The additional grounds are:-<o:p></o:p>‘’
1.The ruling is contrary to the principle in Quaye vs. Mariamu (1961)GLR 93 SC,
as the learned trial judge failed to resolve the primary facts and issues by
evidence.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp; 2.The ruling is premature and bad in law as
issues 5 &amp;6 were never set down for legal argument.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp; 3.The learned trial judge erred therefore in
law when it held that the application to set down issues 5 &amp; 6 were
procedurally competent.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp; 4. The learned trial judge erred therefore
in law when it suo moto lifted the veil of incorporation without any
application or evidence of deceit or fraud before the court.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp; 5.The learned trial judge erred in </main>