DR. PAUL ATTAH (PLAINTIFF) vs. STEPHEN YAO AYISI (DEFENDANT) [2013]DLHC7403

Date	2013-10-30
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BC.577/2013
Citation No.	[2013]DLHC7403

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE GIFTY AGYEI ADDO (MRS.)

KWAME AGATTI FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

SALATHIEL AMEGAVIE WITH HIM A. K. GAISIE FOR THE PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT

[2013]DLHC7403
																																						<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" >DR. PAUL ATTAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>STEPHEN YAO AYISI<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">SUIT
NO. BC.577/2013&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: 30TH
OCTOBER, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>KWAME
AGATTI FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPLICANT <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">

SALATHIEL AMEGAVIE WITH HIM A. K.
GAISIE FOR THE PLAINTIFF/ 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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE GIFTY AGYEI ADDO
(MRS.)<o:p></o:p>

</div>The
Plaintiff in this case issued a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim against
the Defendant on 5th September 2013 for the following reliefs: <o:p></o:p>1.
Damages of GH¢ 100,000.00 for false Imprisonment of the Plaintiff by the
Defendant in causing his arrest and Detention by the Police for no apparent
reason <o:p></o:p>2.
Costs. <o:p></o:p>The
Defendant entered appearance on 4th October 2013, and filed a Motion on Notice
to strike out the action against him pursuant to Order 11 Rule (18) (1) (a) of
the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) on the grounds that
"the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim filed on 5th September 2013, did not
disclose any cause of action or reasonable cause of action against him". <o:p></o:p>At
the hearing of the Application, Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent raised a
preliminary legal objection to the Application. Making reference to Order 19
Rule (1) of C.I. 47, Counsel submitted that per Order 19 Rule (1) of C.I. 47
"Every application in pending proceedings shall be by motion". <o:p></o:p>Counsel
further referred to Order 19 Rule (4) which states that "Every application
shall be supported by affidavit deposed to by the applicant ..." and
stated that since the Application is not supported by an Affidavit same was
incompetent. <o:p></o:p>In
response, the Counsel for the Defendant/Applicant countered that per Order 11
Rule 18 (1) (a) and 18 (2) of C.I. 47 upon which this Application is premised,
no evidence whatsoever - be it affidavit evidence or evidence as adduced during
trial is admissible in respect of an Application of this nature. <o:p></o:p>Counsel
further stated that Order 19 Rule (1) of C.I. 47 makes no reference to
Affidavits, whilst Order 20 Rule (1) of C.I. 47 states that "An affidavit
may be used wherever these Rules so provide". Counsel stated in conclusion
that per Order 20 Rule 1 of C.I. 47, affidavits may be used only when
prescribed by the Rules. <o:p></o:p>The
sole issue to be considered by this Court is whether an Application pursuant to
Order 11 Rule 18 (1) (a) must be supported with Affidavit evidence or not. <o:p></o:p>Order
19 Rule (1) of C.I. 47 states that "Every application in pending
proceedings shall be made by motion." The word "shall" makes it
a mandatory provision. Order 19 Rule (4) of C.I. 47 further states that
"every application shall be supported by affidavit deposed to by the
applicant or some person duly authorised by the Applicant and stating the facts
on which the applicant relies unless any of these Rules provides that an
affidavit shall not be used or unless the application is grounded entirely on
matters of law or procedure which shall be stated in the motion paper".
(The emphasis is mine). <o:p></o:p>By
the interpretation of Order 19 Rule (4) of C.I. 47, the mandatory provision to
support a motion with an affidavit is dispensed with <o:p></o:p>(1)
where any Rules of C.I. 47 specifically state so or <o:p></o:p>(2)
where the Application is grounded on matters of law or procedure. <o:p></o:p>In
such situations, per Order 19 Rule 4, same shall be stated in the motion paper.
<o:p></o:p>Order
11 Rule 18 (2) states that "No evidence whatsoever shall be admissible on
an Application under sub rule (1) (a)" , upon which the present
application is premised. <o:p></o:p>Thus,
on the basis of Order 11 Rule 18 (2), Order 11 Rule 18 (1) (a) of C.I. 47 upon
which this Application is premised is one </main>