REV. NANA ADJEI NTOW OF HOUSE NO D10/2, SUNYANI vs. ERNEST SIAW, BEATRICE ADOMA BOATENG, FLORENCE INDER,YAA NYARKO AND ALL OF H/NO. D10/2, SUNYANI [2015]DLCA8321

REV. NANA ADJEI NTOW OF HOUSE NO D10/2, SUNYANI vs. ERNEST SIAW, BEATRICE ADOMA... [2015]DLCA8321

Date	2015-11-19
Suit No.	SUIT NO.: H1/38/2014
Citation No.	[2015]DLCA8321

AYEBI J.A. (PRESIDING)

TORKORNOO (MRS) J. A.

DOMAKYAAREH (MRS) J. A.

PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT PRESENT IN PERSON

NO REPRESENTATION FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

[2015]DLCA8321
																																						<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" >REV. NANA ADJEI NTOW OF HOUSE
NO D10/2, SUNYANI<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">vs.<o:p></o:p>ERNEST SIAW, BEATRICE ADOMA BOATENG, FLORENCE INDER,YAA
NYARKO&nbsp; AND ALL OF H/NO. D10/2, SUNYANI<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, KUMASI]<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.: H1/38/2014&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: 19TH NOV, 2015<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT PRESENT IN PERSON<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">

NO REPRESENTATION FOR
DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS<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">

AYEBI J.A. (PRESIDING),
TORKORNOO (MRS) J. A., DOMAKYAAREH (MRS) J. A.<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>TORKORNOO
(MRS) , J. A:<o:p></o:p>The Plaintiff/Appellant sued the same
defendants in 2010 in an action numbered suit No C1/28/2010. That action was consolidated with another suit titled Nana Osei Atta and 3 others v Rev Nana
Adjei Ntow and another, and numbered C1/43/2010.<o:p></o:p>When Plaintiff commenced the action in
this appeal numbered C1/38/2013 and the writ was served on the Defendants, they
entered conditional appearance and filed an application to strike out this
action as an abuse of the legal process. Their fundamental ground for the
application was that ‘as far back as
2010, a similar writ of summons seeking almost the same reliefs’ had been
issued against them. After listening to counsel, the learned trial judge struck
out suit C1/38/2013. <o:p></o:p>On page 2 of his ruling he said “it seems to me that their various assertions
asseverations and or depositions will after careful studying(SIC) their cases,
boil down to whether the principle of lis alibi pendens will apply here or not.
And after a careful analysis my decision is that, it can….for simply the fact
that my close examination of exhibit ‘A’ filed before the High Court 3rd
December, 2010 (to which my attention was drawn by the second
defendant/applicant) revealed to me that the reliefs sought by the plaintiff
are just about the same as the plaintiff herein in before the motions court
seeks. <o:p></o:p>Though the
language used in the earlier Suit Number C1/28/2010 filed by the
Plaintiff/Appellant in his proposed amended statement of claim (vide his
Paragraphs 6-11) (which I have leant was granted by the court) was slightly
different, the objective therein and the relief he now seeks from the Motions
Court in suit No. C1/38/2013 is basically the same.&nbsp; That is the EJECTMENT of some or all of the
present defendants in the same two named suits from the same property House
Number D10/2, Central Area, Sunyani.<o:p></o:p>It is basically in
view of the just stated fact that I hold that the principle of lis alibi
pendens &nbsp;applies here since it invariably
means that concurrent proceedings are being taken in the same or different
court against the same parties on the same or almost the same issue. I believe
this is to whichever way one view the situation in terms of the earlier suits
before Justice Assan and the present or intended suit before me in the Motions
Court.<o:p></o:p>In Nkrumah v Ankomah [1972] 2GLR 134, the
court held that where the Applicant is able to prove that the action instituted
by the Plaintiff is vexatious because the Applicant is doubly and unnecessarily
vexed by raising another action for the same cause of action which has been
instituted in another court, the court will invariably strike out the action
(for just the aforementioned reason).<o:p></o:p>And in this
matter, I am totally convinced of the persuasive force and reasonableness of
the authority of Nkrumah v Ankomah case particularly in respect of the
illustration offered in it – namely that where the same litigant brings two
actions about the same matter in two different&nbsp;
courts in this country such a conduct is in all cases deemed to
be vexatious and the defendants’ may demand that he shall elect between the two
proceedings.<o:p></o:p>In reliance upon
the sheer strength and force of the aforementioned authority, I would dismiss
the intended or present suit before me (i.e. Suit No. C1/38/2013) and order
that the Plaintiff/Respondent stick to his earlier suit or suits before the
o</main>