DAULATTA DALIO vs. GUARANTY TRUST BANK GH LTD & 2 ORS [2016]DLHC7238

Date	2016-07-11
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC/04/14
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC7238

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).

OBENG-MANU JNR FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

Y.A. AFFRRAM FOR 1ST DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

[2016]DLHC7238
																																						<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" >DAULATTA
DALIO<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GUARANTY TRUST BANK GH LTD &amp; 2 ORS<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION), 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">

SUIT
NO. OCC/04/14&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE:
11TH JULY, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>OBENG-MANU
JNR FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<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">

Y.A.
AFFRRAM FOR 1ST DEFENDANT/APPLICANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 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-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>On the 18th May, 2016 I dismissed the
application filed by the 1st defendant praying for an order to
dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff and reserved my reasons which I now
proceed to give.<o:p></o:p>On the 3rd February, 2014, the plaintiff
herein issued a writ of summons asking for, among other things, the following
reliefs:-<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;
An
order setting aside the Auction Sale conducted by CT squire of M/S F.O. Squire
&amp; Co., Licensed Auctioneer of Goodwill Mart on 22nd June, 2012
under a writ of execution in satisfaction of the judgment of the High Court
(Fast Track Division) dated 13th May, 2008 in suit no. AB6/2008 on
the ground of fraud.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;
An
order setting aside the said auction sale in relief 1 above on the further
ground that the property sold in that auction sale was not the property of the
defendant/judgment debtor IMADA HAIDARA but rather the personal property of
HAMMIDU DALO (deceased) the father of plaintiff herein.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the 13th February, 2014 the 1st
defendant entered a conditional appearance.&nbsp;
The 1st defendant then filed its statement of defence on the
3rd March, 2014.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff then filed a reply to the 1st
defendant’s statement of defence on the 15th May, 2014.&nbsp; The court entered a default judgment against
the 2nd and 3rd defendants in default of defence.&nbsp; On the 28th May, 2015, the said
default judgment was set aside upon an application to set aside the default
judgment has been filed on behalf of the 3rd defendants.&nbsp; Subsequent to the setting aside of the
default judgment, the 2nd and 3rd defendants failed once
again to file their statement of defence.&nbsp;
With pleadings closed and the case to be referred for pre-trial, the 1st
defendant brought the present application seeking an order to dismiss the suit
under order 11 rule 10 of C.I 47.<o:p></o:p>Order 11 rule 10 provides;-<o:p></o:p>“10
(1) A party shall not in any pleading make any allegation of fact or raise any
new ground or claim, inconsistent with a previous pleading made by the party.<o:p></o:p>(2)
Sub rule (1) shall not be taken as limiting the right of a party to amend or
apply for leave to amend previous pleading of the party in order to plead
allegations or claims in the alternative.”<o:p></o:p>My understanding of the rule 10(1) of C.I.47 is
that a party’s second pleading must not contradict his first pleading.&nbsp; The effect of the rule is to prevent a
plaintiff from setting up in his reply a new claim which is inconsistent with
the cause of action alleged in the statement of claim.&nbsp; See Earp v. Henderson (1876) 3 CH.D.254.&nbsp; For example, it has been held that if a
plaintiff claims rent on his writ of summons, he cannot claim the same sum in
his reply as damages for unlawfully “holding over”.&nbsp; See the case of Duckworth v McClelland (2
L.R. 1r. 527).&nbsp; Lord Vaughan Williams
L.J. in Pash v Keays (1898) unreported, held that if a claim is for rent and dilapidations
under a lease, and the defendant pleads that the lease was assigned and became
vested in another person, the reply cannot plead that the defendant became a
yearly tenant by occupation and payment.<o:p></o:p>