ALPHA MUSA vs. MRS. MATILDA OBO-NAI AND NII ANYETEI OBO-NAI [2012]DLCA7964

Date	2012-11-08
Suit No.	SUIT NO. HI/62/09
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA7964

APPAU JA – PRESIDING

AYEBI J.A.

ADJEI J.A

[2012]DLCA7964
																																						<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" >ALPHA MUSA<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-US" 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;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">vs.<o:p></o:p>MRS. MATILDA
OBO-NAI AND NII ANYETEI OBO-NAI<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, 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">

<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">SUIT NO. HI/62/09 &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:
8TH NOVEMBER, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div><span lang="EN-US" 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;;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">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">

APPAU
JA – PRESIDING, AYEBI J.A., ADJEI J.A<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>DENNIS
ADJEI,J.A.:<o:p></o:p>On
9th November, 2007, the High Court Accra struck out the suit
instituted by the plaintiff/appellant herein on several reasons. The plaintiff/appellant
dissatisfied with the ruling filed an appeal against same on 29th
November, 2007.<o:p></o:p>The
brief facts of the matter were that the plaintiff/appellant herein (who would
be described in this appeal as plaintiff) instituted an action against the
defendant/respondent (who would be referred to in this appeal as defendants) in
the High Court, Accra for, inter alia, A declaration of title to an area of
0.32 acres which forms part of a large track of land covering an area of
275.437 acres. The plaintiff instituted this action against the defendants in
his capacity as the administrator of the estate of the late Malam Musah. The
defendants entered conditional appearance to the plaintiff’s writ of summons on
23rd May, 2007. On 19th June, 2007 the defendants filed an
application under Order 11 Rule 18(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules
C.I. 47. The basis for the defendants application was that ownership to the
land covering an approximate area of 0.32 acre was heard by the High Court
differently constituted and a judgment was given in their favour and the
plaintiff’s action constitutes an abuse of the process of the court. The High
Court on 9th November, 2007 dismissed the plaintiff’s action for
constituting an abuse of the judicial process.<o:p></o:p>The
five (5) grounds of appeal filed by the plaintiff are as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“i. The judge erred when he held that the High
Court’s refusal to join the plaintiff/appellant to suit No L92/97, the
plaintiff/appellant cannot be said to have been over reached by the final
decision in that suit.<o:p></o:p>ii.
The Judge erred in law when he held that plaintiff’s writ was an attempt to
retry suit No. 92/97.<o:p></o:p>iii.
The Judge erred in law when he held that the plaintiff/appellant’s writ was an
abuse of the process of the court.<o:p></o:p>iv.
The judge erred in law when he held that because the judgment in Suit No. L
92/97 is on appeal before the Court of Appeal, the plaintiff/appellant’s writ
is an abuse of the court.<o:p></o:p>v.
The judge erred in law when it granted the &nbsp;&nbsp;defendants/applicants/respondents application
even though they entered a conditional appearance and were limited as to what
steps could be taken”.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff in arguing ground (V) of his appeal submitted that where a person
enters conditional appearance, there are prescribed acts that the person may do
and those acts&nbsp; do not &nbsp;include striking out&nbsp; the plaintiffs pleadings&nbsp; as constituting&nbsp; an abuse of the&nbsp; process &nbsp;of the court&nbsp;
as was done&nbsp; by the&nbsp; trial&nbsp;
court and&nbsp; was therefore&nbsp; a nullity.<o:p></o:p>The
law is settled that a defendant who enters a conditional appearance cannot
apply to the court to set the writ aside because he is relying on res</main>