ELVISCO FARMS vs. KENNEDY TWI & SONS AND ANOR [2017]DLHC4153

Date	2017-09-29
Suit No.	SUIT NO.RPC 29/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC4153

DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE HIGH COURT JUDGE

J. B. DANQUAH FOR THE APPLICANT

E. K. NKANSA-NINWIE FOR THE RESPONDENTS

[2017]DLHC4153
																																						<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" >ELVISCO FARMS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KENNEDY TWI &amp; SONS AND ANOR <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 29/2017&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; DATE: 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:
<o:p></o:p>J. B. DANQUAH FOR THE 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;
line-height:115%;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-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;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>This
is a motion on notice for an order of mandatory injunction directed at
Registrar of the court and restraining him from releasing to the respondent the
outstanding balance of cash standing to the credit of the respondent/judgment
debtor herein.<o:p></o:p>The
grounds of the application are contained in the affidavit in support and
supplementary affidavit in support of the motion (i.e. response to affidavit in
opposition) filed on 7/09/2017 and 25/09/2017 respectively.<o:p></o:p>The
Respondents are opposed to the application and have demonstrated the grounds in
the affidavit in opposition filed on 13/09/2017.<o:p></o:p>As
part of his submissions to the court, Counsel for the Defendants/Respondents
have raised a preliminary legal objection which borders on the competence of
this application. He submitted that the application is incompetent since per
Order 25 rule 1 (2) of CI 47 an application for injunction can only be brought
by a party to a suit and that the applicant is not a party to the original
action. He also submitted that under Order 25 rule 1 (3) of CI 47, a statement
of case ought to have been attached to the application. Thus, absence of a
statement of case makes the application incompetent.<o:p></o:p>In
his response, counsel for the applicant submitted that even though the
respondents indicated in their affidavit in opposition that they intendto raise
a preliminary legal objection they ought to have particularised the said
objection and that failure to do so makes the objection incompetent. Counsel
relied on the following cases:<o:p></o:p>Benyarko v Central Conference of the
Seventh Day Adventist Church [2001/02] GLR 473<o:p></o:p>Trustee Synagogue Church of All
Nations v Agyeman [2010] SCGLR 712<o:p></o:p>He
also referred to Order 43 rule 9 (1) of CI 47 and submitted that a non-party to
a suit is entitled to come to court for the purpose of enforcement. This was in
response to counsel for the respondents’submission that the applicant lacked
the capacity to file this application.<o:p></o:p>On
the issue of the statement of case, counsel for the applicant submitted that
granted without admitting that a statement of case is a requirement under the
rules, absence of it should be treated as a mere irregularity and should not
nullify the proceedings of the court. He cited Order 81 of CI 47 in support of
this submission.<o:p></o:p>In
this ruling, I intend to deal with the preliminary legal objection since it
touches on the competence of the entire application.<o:p></o:p>The
Tanzanian case of Mukisa Biscuit
Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. West End Distributors Ltd. (1969) EA 696, Law JA
explained the nature of preliminary legal objection at page 700 of the report
as follows:<o:p></o:p>“So
far as I am aware, a preliminary objection consists of a point of law which has
been pleaded or which arise by clear implication out of the pleadings, and
which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit.&nbsp; Examples are an objection to the jurisdiction
of the court, or a plea of limitation, or a submission that the parties are
bound by the contract giving rise to the suit to refer the suit to
arbitration.”<o:p></o:p>The
purpose of a preliminary objection to an application is to contend that the
application is incompetent or fundamentally defective such that it is not worth
considering the merits of it. This contention may be borne out of the motion
</main>