FRANCIS TAWIAH AND AN OTHER vs. GHANA HOME LOANS LTD [2017]DLHC3320

Date	2017-07-24
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ 872/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3320

ERIC K. BAFFOUR ESQ. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

[2017]DLHC3320
																																						<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" >FRANCIS TAWIAH AND AN OTHER<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA HOME LOANS LTD<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT
(GENERAL JURISDICTION 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. GJ
872/2017&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;24TH
JULY, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>ERIC K. BAFFOUR ESQ. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<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="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>It is provided under Order 11 rule 18(1)(b) and (d) of
the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, C. I. 47 that:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order any pleadings or anything
in any pleadings to be struck out on the grounds that:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>(b) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(d) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>And may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be
entered accordingly”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Defendant has mounted this application under Order 11
rule 18(b) &amp; (d) seeking an order for the dismissal of the suit on the
grounds that the suit is vexatious and constitute an abuse of the judicial
process. In the affidavit that accompanied the application defendant claim that
in the writ filed by plaintiff they seek to set aside the judgment obtained by
defendant in Suit No BFS/356/2014 on grounds of fraud. And the reasons
plaintiffs provide in support of the fraud allegations is that in the grant of
the loan to plaintiff/respondents herein the defendant/applicant failed to
disclose the meaning and effect of the writ that was issued and served
plaintiffs. And the second allegation in support of the fraud allegation is
that the solicitors of defendant concealed from the court the fact that the
transaction between them was a mortgage transaction as defendant did not also
comply with the mandatory demand notice provision under the Home Mortgage
Finance Act.<o:p></o:p>These allegations, defendant contends are frivolous
and vexatious and that same out to be struck out and the suit dismissed
accordingly.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Plaintiff/Respondents have resisted the attempt by
defendant to have the writ struck out on the ground that the application is
without any basis in law. To plaintiff the judgment obtained by Ghana Home
Loans in Suit No BFS/356/2014 was tainted with fraud on the basis that
defendant failed in his duty to inform the trial court that it was a mortgage
action, that a demand notice was not brought to the notice of the mortgagors as
required by law, that the mortgagee knew the mortgagors to be illiterates and
were not put on notice to get an independent legal opinion.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th edition defines ‘abuse of process’ as
follows: <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“There is said to be an
abuse of process when an adversary through the malicious and unfounded use of
some regular legal proceeding obtains some advantage over his opponent”.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Dotse JSC relying on this principle noted in the case
of NAOS HOLDING v COMMERCIAL BANK GHANA
LTD [2011] SCGLR noted that:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“the principle of abuse of
process clearly then underscores the essence of preventing those who want to
make the litigation arena i.e. the law courts a career from embarking upon such
a process as it is contrary to public policy and leads to loss of valuable&nbsp; ti</main>