AHMED DANAWI vs. BARCLAYS BANK OF GHANA LIMITED [2011]DLHC7879

Date	2011-06-10
Suit No.	SUIT NO. AC 124/2011
Citation No.	[2011]DLHC7879

JUSTICE C. J. HONYENUGA J.A. SITTING AS AN ADDITIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGE

[2011]DLHC7879
																																						<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" >AHMED DANAWI<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>BARCLAYS BANK
OF GHANA LIMITED<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT
(FAST TRACK DIVISION), ACCRA]<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">

SUIT
NO. AC 124/2011&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 10TH JUNE, 2011<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">

JUSTICE
C. J. HONYENUGA J.A. SITTING AS AN ADDITIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGE<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>On the 15th day of December 2010, the
plaintiff caused a writ of summons to be issued against the defendant claiming
as follows:-<o:p></o:p>“(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Rent review arrears recoverable for the period February 2004 to
February 2009 based on the prevailing economic and market conditions at a rate
of twenty percent (20%) increase in the rent for the period amounting to One
Hundred and Twenty Thousand United States Dollars (US$120,000.00) or its equivalent
in cedis.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Interest
on the said amount.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Costs<o:p></o:p>The writ of summons was accompanied with an
eighteen page statement of claim.&nbsp; On the
24th day of December, 2010, the defendant caused an appearance to be
filed on its behalf.&nbsp; The defendant later
caused a statement of defence and counterclaim to be filed.&nbsp; The plaintiff also filed a Reply to the
statement of defence and counterclaim.<o:p></o:p>On the 15th day of April 2011, the
defendant filed a motion on notice supported by an affidavit under Order 11
rule 18(1)(a) of C.I. 47 and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court for an
order to strike out the writ of summons and the statement of claim for
disclosing no reasonable action and for judgment to be entered against the
plaintiffs on the reliefs as endorsed on the Counterclaim.&nbsp; The plaintiff also filed an affidavit in
opposition.<o:p></o:p>From the motion paper, the affidavit in support
and the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the defendant/applicant, it
is quite obvious that, the applicant is seeking to strike out the action under
order 11 rule 18(a) of C.I. 47 and also invoked the inherent jurisdiction of
the court on two grounds.&nbsp; The first
ground is that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this action because
the relationship between the parties is governed by the Rent Act, 1963, Act
220.&nbsp; Learned Counsel referred to
sections 36, 10, 11 and 12 together with Part 5 of Act 220 and Ashkar v Karam [1972] 1 GLR 1 and Mrs. Bannerman Quist &amp; Another v
Michael Agbotui Soussoudis in Civil Appeal No. 134/99 unreported and dated
27th July 2000 in support.<o:p></o:p>The second ground is that the action is statute
barred since the cause of action arose on 16/2/04 when the applicant rejected
the claim for increase in rent.&nbsp; He
submits that since the matter is a simple contract and the cause of action by
section 4 of the Limitation Act had exceeded six years, the plaintiff’s action
became extinguished.<o:p></o:p>Learned Counsel for the plaintiff/respondent
contends that the court should spuriously exercise its discretion to strike out
an action because the court had not had the benefit of examining the defence a
party has in support of its case.&nbsp; He
further contends that order 11 rule 18 does not permit affidavit evidence and
that the applicant by his statement of defence had admitted more than half of
the plaintiff’s claim.&nbsp; He submitted that
there is no basis for the action to be dismissed.&nbsp; He referred to Republic v High Court, Accra Ex Parte Aryeetey [2003-2004] SCGLR
398 Holding 4 and contends that there are triable issues in this case and that
the courts deprecate a situation where a party claims he has an unimpeachable
defence.&nbsp; He finally submitted that the
inherent jurisdiction of the Court arises only if the processes of the court
are abused.<o:p></o:p>With leave, Mr. Logan, Counsel for the applicant
replied that admissions have nothing to do with the reliefs as claimed and that
argument is misconceived.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>Before I proceed, it is necessary to refer to
Order 11 rule 19(1)(a) of C.I. 47 and also state the position of the law with
regard to whether affidavit evidence is permissible with regard to the
invocation of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.&nbsp; Order 11 rule 18(1) of the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules 2004, (C.I. 47) provides:-<o:p></o:p>“18(1)&nbsp; The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order any pleading or
anything in any pleading to be struck out on the grounds that:<o:p></o:p>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;
It
discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence; or<o:p></o:p>