THE BRITISH HIGH COMMISSION vs. GEORGE ADAAKOK & 98 ORS [2013]DLHC12069

Date	2013-07-31
Suit No.	SUIT NO. IRL 78/13
Citation No.	[2013]DLHC12069

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM

JAMES ODARTEY MILLS FOR APPLICANT

AKAINYAH AZANNE FOR RESPONDENTS

[2013]DLHC12069
																																						<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" >THE BRITISH
HIGH COMMISSION<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GEORGE
ADAAKOK &amp; 98 ORS<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>JAMES ODARTEY MILLS FOR APPLICANT,<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

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

</div>The applicants, former
employees of the respondent, filed a motion to strike out the writ of Summons
and Statement of Claim issued against them. The basis of their application is
premised on paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 of their affidavit in support. The said,
depositions are:<o:p></o:p>“19” that we are advised
and verily believe same to be true that there is no provision in the said ADR
Act that entitles the plaintiff herein to issue any fresh writ against us under
the guise of challenging the award.<o:p></o:p>“20” that in any case, we
are also advised and verily believe same to be true that under the said Act,
once parties choose to undergo arbitration, the arbitration discussion is final
and binding except which clearly outlined in the said Act.<o:p></o:p>“21” that in any case also,
we are further advised and verily&nbsp;
believe same to be true, that assuming without admitting that the
plaintiff is coming under one or more of the said few instances, coming by way
of issuing a fresh writ of summons against us an incurably bad procedure and
unknown to law governing arbitration proceedings ask to mention the fact that
is so clearly calculated at delaying, frustrating and preventing us from
enjoying the fruit of our victory against plaintiff High Commission”.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>In its response, the
respondent raised the issue that, the applicants procedure is defective upon
the following grounds:<o:p></o:p><ol style="margin-top:0cm" start="1" type="a">
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: normal; border: none;">No
 order or rule had been identified in the motion paper<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; line-height: normal; border: none;">There
 should&nbsp; not have been an affidavit
 in support of the motion<o:p></o:p></li>
 <li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 10pt; text-align: justify; line-height: normal; border: none;">That under Order 81 r
 2, the applicant should have set down grounds.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>Under Order 9 r 1, it&nbsp; provides:<o:p></o:p>“1” Subject to Order 5 r 1
of these rules a defendant to an action may whether or not the defendant is
sued in a personal capacity or as a trustee or as a personal representative
capacity, filed appearance in the action and defend it in person or through a
lawyer”<o:p></o:p>An entry of conditional
appearance, Order 9 r 7 (1), CI 47, reserves to the defendant the right to
apply to set aside the writ. See Order 9 r 8 (a) as said in Republic vrs. High Court, Accra;
ex-parte Aryeetey [2003-2004] SCGLR, the Supreme Court reiterated the
circumstances when conditional appearance may be entered thus:<o:p></o:p>