BABBEL LIMITED vs KWABENA MENSAH BONSU [2017]DLHC16168

Date	2017-07-04
Suit No.	SUIT NO: GJ /813/2016
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC16168

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH- BOAFO

MR. CHARLES ANDOH

ALEX AGYEI-AGYIRI

[2017]DLHC16168
																																						<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" >BABBEL LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KWABENA MENSAH BONSU<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: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT NO: GJ
/813/2016&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
4TH JULY, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>MR. CHARLES
ANDOH FOR THE PLAINTIFF - PRESENT <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;">

ALEX
AGYEI-AGYIRI FOR THE DEFENDANT - PRESENT <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP
JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH- BOAFO<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="Default" align="center" style="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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>Introduction: <o:p></o:p>[1]
It recalls that on the 16th day of June, 2016
the Plaintiff commenced this instant action by issuing a writ of summons
against the Defendant herein endorsed with the reliefs set out here below:<o:p></o:p>i. The default judgment fraudulently acquired by the
Defendant against the Plaintiff on the 3rd day of April 2014 be set aside. <o:p></o:p>ii. Refund of the amount of Eighty Thousand Cedis (GHS
80,000) paid to the Defendant. <o:p></o:p>iii. Interest on the said amount from the
25th of February, 2014 to the date of final payment. <o:p></o:p>iv. Damages for breach of contract. <o:p></o:p>v. Cost <o:p></o:p>[2] After been served with the Plaintiffs Writ of Summons and
Statement of Claim, the Defendant/Applicant herein entered Conditional
Appearance and brought this instant Motion on Notice premised on Order 11 r
18(1) (d) of CI 47 filed on 20/07/2016 by learned Counsel for the
Defendant/Applicant herein, the Applicant seeks an order of this court: <o:p></o:p>“…….to strike out the
Plaintiff’s writ and statement of claim upon grounds deposed to in the
accompanying affidavit….”<o:p></o:p>[3]
The grounds upon which the application is premised
are catalogued in the 27 paragraph supporting affidavit accompanying the motion
paper. The thrust of the Defendant/Applicant’s case is that the Writ of Summons
is an abuse of the process of the Court because the Plaintiff is “attempting to
re-litigate the issues in Suit No. BC250/2014 entitled KWABENA MENSU-BONSU
vrs BEIGE HOME LIMITED which said company is now called Babbel Limited”. It
is the case of the Defendant/Applicant that the “two suits involve the same
parties, same issues and same lawyers”. According to Counsel, the Plaintiff
which was the Defendant in the earlier suit failed or refused to file any
statement of defence and also even though it was served with application for
judgment in default of defence no affidavit in opposition was filed and
therefore the Court entered judgment in favour of the Defendant herein who was
the Plaintiff in the earlier suit on April 3, 2014. In effect, the Applicant
says the present suit is inviting the Court to determine a matter which is
already determined.<o:p></o:p>Arguments
in Favour of the Motion:<o:p></o:p>[4] In moving the application, learned Counsel referred to
the affidavit deposition and submitted that the judgment entered by the Court
on April 3, 2014 attached as Exhibit “D” still exist, has not been set aside
and was not challenged and the present Defendant has gone into execution. The
existence of the judgment notwithstanding the Plaintiff herein has issued a
fresh writ of summons therefore according to learned Counsel this Court should
not permit the Plaintiff to do so. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in THE
REPUBLIC VRS HIGH COURT, EX PARTE ARYEETEY (2003-2004) SCGLR 398 @ 405, PER
KPEGAH JSC learned Counsel submitted that the present suit is an abuse of
the Court process. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[5] Further, learned Counsel for the Applicant has argued
most strongly that the Plaintiff was represented by Counsel in the earlier suit
and it is the same Counsel in this proceedings therefore it should be presumed
that it had the benefit of a legal advise. On the authority of ADU v. ANKUMAH
[1972] 1 GLR 22 therefore learned Counsel postulated that to have had the
benefit of a lawyer and not challenged the judgment it should not be allowed to
institute a fresh action. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[6] Learned Counsel for the Defendant/Applicant further
relied on the Supreme Court unreported case of OSEI ANSONG &amp; PASSION
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL v. GHANA AIRPORT COMPANY LTD, Civil Appeal Number
J4/24/2013 delivered on 23 January 2013 and postulated that the facts are
similar on the grounds that the apex Court upheld an appeal f</main>