BETTY KONADU AND 2 OTHERS vs. ISSAH MOHAMMED AND MORO ABDULAI TANO [2017]DLHC5643

Date	2017-08-30
Suit No.	SUIT NO: C7/55/17
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC5643

JUSTICE FRANCIS OBIRI

ANNIS MOHAYIDEEN FOR THE APPLICANTS

EGBLOGBE. ANAGLATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS

[2017]DLHC5643
																																						<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" >BETTY KONADU AND 2 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ISSAH MOHAMMED AND MORO ABDULAI TANO<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, 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">

SUIT NO: C7/55/17&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 30TH AUGUST, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ANNIS
MOHAYIDEEN FOR THE APPLICANTS<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">

EGBLOGBE. ANAGLATE FOR THE
RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p>

</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">

</div><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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;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 24th July 2017, the
defendants/applicants hereinafter called the applicants, prayed in a motion on
notice for the court to set aside and or strike out the plaintiffs/respondents
writ of summons and the statement of claim. The motion was accompanied by
affidavit in support.&nbsp; The relevant
paragraphs of the affidavit in support to this ruling are as follows:<o:p></o:p>(5) That, the said writ of summons and
statement of claim are incompetent and same should be set aside and or struck
out as void.<o:p></o:p>(6)That,
I am advised and verily believe that, the said void and or incompetent writ of
summons is incapable of properly invoking the Honourable Court jurisdiction and
to proceed therefrom.<o:p></o:p>(7)
That to the extent of want of jurisdiction of the Honourable Court, the writ of
summons is a proper one for the Honourable Court to set aside and or struck out
same as void.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiffs/respondents (hereinafter called the respondents) resisted the
application by filling affidavit in opposition. The relevant paragraphs of the
affidavit in opposition are as follows:<o:p></o:p>(8)The
High Court has original jurisdiction in this matter.<o:p></o:p>(9)The
affidavit in support of the application does not disclose any reason for the
alleged incompetency of the writ.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
motion was argued on 14th August, 2017.&nbsp; Counsel for the applicants prayed the court
to set aside the respondents writ on the following grounds:<o:p></o:p>First,
the writ which was issued on 8th June 2017 had the name of Georgina
Theodora Wood embossed on it as the Chief Justice.&nbsp; However, on the said date, she was not the
Chief Justice.&nbsp; Therefore, the writ is
incompetent and incapable of invoking the jurisdiction of the court.<o:p></o:p>Secondly,
the incompetency of the writ is as a result of counsel’s failure to &nbsp;&nb</main>