DR. PAUL ATTAH (PLAINTIFF) vs. STEPHEN YAO AYISI (DEFENDANT) [2013]DLHC7404

Date	2013-11-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BC.577/2013
Citation No.	[2013]DLHC7404

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]DLHC7404
																																						<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;&nbsp;DATE: 28TH NOVEMBER, 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 a Statement of Claim against
the Defendant on 05-09-2013 for the following reliefs: <o:p></o:p>1.
Damages of 100,000.00 GH Cedis 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 04-10-2013 and filed on the same day a motion
on notice for an order to strike out the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim upon
the grounds that the Statement of Claim does not "disclose any cause of
action or reasonable cause of action" against the Defendant (hereinafter
referred to as the Applicant) pursuant to order 11 R 18 (1) (a) of the High
Court (Civil Procedures) Rules, 2004, C.I. 47. <o:p></o:p>The
only pleading at this stage of the proceedings was the Plaintiff's Statement of
Claim and this was the pleading under attack. <o:p></o:p>A
summation of the Statement of Claim of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to
as the Respondent) is that the Applicant is the caretaker of the house (plot
No. 21123, Amanfrom) in which the Respondent is a tenant. That on 26th April,
2013, on a particularly dark night around 7.30 pm, the Respondent heard an
unusual noise in the house, an enquiry of which revealed that it was the
Applicant, who although he failed to disclose his name, was identified by the
Respondent by his voice. Per the Respondent, he cautioned the Applicant about
the risk of hovering in the house on a dark night since he could have shot him
as a trespasser. Respondent states that some confrontation took place whereupon
the Applicant, who "resides in the Frafraha Police Barracks" reported
him to the police who got him arrested and detained, his house being also
searched without a search warrant, "with the active support of the
defendant". That after suffering pain and humiliation in his community as
a result of the said arrest and detention, he was released by the police in the
absence of any grounds for the arrest. <o:p></o:p>At
the hearing of the Application, Counsel for the Applicant in his submission in
support of this application, with specific reference to paragraphs 8 and 9 of
the Statement of Claim, submitted as follows: <o:p></o:p>That
from the Statement of Claim, the Applicant merely reported whatever ensued
between the parties to the present suit to the police and that there is no
indication from the Claim that the arrest and detention of the Respondent by
the police was authorized by the Applicant. <o:p></o:p>He
further stated that the thought of false imprisonment requires that the arrest
and detention of the Respondent must have been as a result of the Applicant
directly causing the arrest and detention of the Respondent by the police. In
other words, he stated, "there must be an element of directness which must
be proved in respect of the conduct of the defendant". <o:p></o:p>That
merely providing information to the police and the latter acting on same in
their own professional capacity by arresting the Respondent will not constitute
false imprisonment, citing the case of Onogen vrs. Deventis Co. Ltd. 1989 GLR
105. <o:p></o:p>He
concluded that there is the absence of such directness looking at the
Respondent's Statement of Claim and therefore same should be struck out. <o:p></o:p>The
Respondent in response and referring to paragraph 3 of his Statement of Claim
countered that the element of directness can be gleaned from his Claim by
reason of the fact that per his Claim, he had stated that the Applicant lived
in the same compound with the police and that that was the relationship the
Applicant exploited to get him arrested. He further countered that his Claim
could only be proved at the trial by leading evidence on same. <o:p></o:p>The
issue for determination before this Court is whether or not looking at the
Respondent's Statement of Claim there is a reasonable cause of action before
this Court. <o:p></o:p>