ALHASSAN ISSAKA vs. JULIANA AFFUM [2017]DLHC4101

Date	2017-03-23
Suit No.	SUIT NO. RPC 45/2015
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC4101

DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

OHENE AMANKWAH GYAN FOR THE CLAIMANT/APPLICANT

ALFRED ANIM QUARSHIE FOR THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR/RESPONDENT

[2017]DLHC4101
																																						<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" >ALHASSAN ISSAKA<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>JULIANA AFFUM<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL DIVISION), KUMASI]<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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

SUIT&nbsp;NO. RPC 45/2015&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 23RD MARCH, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:
<o:p></o:p>OHENE AMANKWAH GYAN FOR
THE CLAIMANT/APPLICANT<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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

</div>CORAM: <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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

</div><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>On the 15th of
November, 2016, this Honourable Court gave the following ruling:<o:p></o:p>“Upon
reading the affidavit in support of the motion as well as the annexures and
upon hearing counsel for the applicant, it is apparent that the property which
is the subject matter of the application has not been properly described. “A
residential property washing Bay situate at Teshie – Greater Accra Region” does
not give a vivid description of the subject property. The court needs better
particulars.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
made reference to a locational plan which is attached to the Auctioneer’s
Report. Unfortunately, the said plan is not helpful to the court in relation to
the description of the property. In the circumstances, I am unable to grant the
motion for Reserved Price, as the application is incompetent. The application
is hereby dismissed with liberty to re-apply.”<o:p></o:p>Based on the ruling above,
the plaintiff/judgment creditor/respondent filed a fresh application on notice
for reserved price on 17/11/2016. The application was moved on 29/11/2016 and
the same was granted on that date.<o:p></o:p>It is the ruling of the
court dated 15/11/2016 coupled with the grant of the application for Reserved
Price on 29/11/2016 that has triggered the instant application.<o:p></o:p>The applicant herein is
praying the honourable court to set aside the Order for Reserved Price granted
on 29/11/2016.<o:p></o:p>The gravamen of the
application is that the application for Reserved Price was dismissed per the
ruling of 15/11/2016 and that a repeat application cannot be brought to this
court, as the court is functus officio. Counsel for the applicant argued that
the order of the court given on 29/11/2016 is void and same must be set aside.<o:p></o:p>The respondent is opposed
to the application and has deposed to an affidavit in opposition stating among
other things that the application has been brought in bad faith.<o:p></o:p>The order given by this
court per the ruling above is that “the application is dismissed with liberty
to re-apply”. It is trite learning that dismissal of an application does not
give the applicant the liberty to repeat the application before the same court.
Striking out an application, however, presents the applicant with the
opportunity to re-apply to the same court.“Dismissed with liberty to re-apply” as
captured in the ruling in contention is palpably different from “dismissed”
simpliciter.<o:p></o:p>The basic rule in the
interpretation of documents is that the document must be read together as a
whole to ascertain the intention of its maker. This principle is also
applicable to the interpretation of judgments, rulings and orders of the court.<o:p></o:p>A careful reading of the
ruling as a whole shows clearly that the intention of the court was to strike
out the application for incompetence. It was not for nothing that sentences and
phrases such as “the court needs better particulars” and “with liberty to
re-apply” were used. Clearly, the use of the phrase “dismissed with liberty to
re-apply” was a mistake. A regrettable slip indeed! Thankfully, the rules make
provision for correction of such honest mistakes contained in orders of the
court. Order 16 rule 10 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004 CI 47
provides:<o:p></o:p>“Clerical
mistakes in judgments or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental
slip or omission, may at any time be corrected by the Court either on its own
motion on notice to the parties or on an application without an appeal.”<o:p></o:p>This provision is compatible
with the time honoured principle that any mistake contained in a judgment or
order which is apparent on the record can be rectified in the interest of
justice.<o:p></o:p><sp</main>