ERNEST OSEI vs. ANDREW POKU [2017]DLHC11904

Date	2017-02-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ 981/2016
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC11904

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE PATIENCE-MILLS TETTEH

PRINCE NII ASHIE NEEQUAYE FOR PLAINTIFF

RAY APPIAH AMPONSAH FOR 2ND FOR DEFENDANT

[2017]DLHC11904
																																						<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" >ERNEST
OSEI<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p><a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>ANDREW
POKU<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. GJ 981/2016&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&nbsp;FEBRUARY 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL&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; <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: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">PRINCE NII ASHIE
NEEQUAYE FOR PLAINTIFF <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE PATIENCE-MILLS
TETTEH<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>This is a motion filed on 12/01/17 to dismiss
or set aside the writ of summons filed on 12/7/16 on the following grounds;<o:p></o:p>•&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
the issue of fraud raised by the plaintiff/ respondent has been raised and
determined on three previous occasions and to raise it again in this court is
an abuse of the court process<o:p></o:p>•&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That
the plaintiff/respondent filed a notice of appeal on the 13th of June 2007 but
fraud was not made an issue.<o:p></o:p>As stated by Date- Bah JSC as he then was in
the case of SASU v. AMUA SEKYI [2003-2004] SGCLR at page 769, and as observed
by Lord Bingham of Cornhill in JOHNSON v. GORE WOOD &amp; CO [2002] AC 1 at 31,
the three doctrines of cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel and the rule of
Henderson v. Henderson have a common purpose. The rule of Henderson v.
Henderson also known as the doctrine of abuse of court process although
separate and &nbsp;&nbsp;distinct from cause of
action estoppel and issue estoppel has much in common with them. The underlying
principle or basic public interest is the same and it is this, that there
should be finality in litigation and an issue should not be twice litigated
between the same parties.<o:p></o:p>In the same case of SASU v. AMUA SEKYI,
Ampiah JSC (as he then was) was quoted to have stated in the case of IN RE
KWABENG STOOL;KARIKARI v. ABABIO II [2001-2002]SCGLR 515 at 530 thus;<o:p></o:p>“The doctrine or principle of estoppel is
founded on the maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium meaning, ‘it
concerns the state that lawsuits be not protracted.’ Also ‘no man ought to be
twice vexed, if it be found to the court that it be for one and the same cause’
(nemo debet bis vexari, si constat veriae quod sit pro una et eadem causa). If
an action is brought, and the merits of the question are determined between the
parties, and a final judgment is obtained. The parties are precluded, and
cannot canvass the same question again in another action, although, perhaps,
some objection or argument might have been urged upon the first trial which
would have led to a different judgment.”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This principle was also referred to in the
case NAOS HOLDING INC v. GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD, civil appeal No.J4/28/2009.
In that case it was unanimously held that the doctrine of abuse of process,
commonly known as rule in Henderson v. Henderson will require a party when the
matter had become the subject of litigation between them in a court of
competent jurisdiction, to bring their whole case before the court so that all
aspects of it might be finally decided once and for all. In the absence of
special circumstances, the parties could not return to the court to advance
arguments, claims or defences which they could have put forward for decision on
the first occasion but failed to raise. This is a rule of public policy,
according to the Supreme Court, based on the general interest as well as that
of the parties themselves that litigation should not drag on forever and that a
defendant should not be oppressed by successive suits when one will do.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In the case of DZOTEPE v. HAHORMENE III
[1987-88]] 2GLR which influenced the plaintiff/ respondent in his submissions,
the Supreme Court stated in holding 1 thus;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“The settled practice of court is that the
proper method of impeaching a completed judgment on grounds of fraud was by
action in which the particulars of the fraud must be exactly given and the
allegation established by strict proof. Fraud was an issue of fact to be
determined by the court. Accordingly where the issue had not been determined
either by the trial c</main>