MRS. GYAMPOH& 3 OTHERS vs. UNION SAVINGS AND LOAN CO. LTD. [2017]DLHC9181

Date	2017-06-29
Suit No.	SUIT NO.:CM/OCC/0742/16
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC9181

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE JENNIFER ABENA DADZIE

THEOPHILUS KPORVIE ESQ. OF POUZING & ASSOCIATES ACCRA COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/ APPLICANTS

NANA AKWASI AWUAH ESQ. OF AB LEXMALL & ASSOCIATES ACCRA COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2017]DLHC9181
																																						<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" >MRS. GYAMPOH&amp; 3 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>UNION SAVINGS AND LOAN CO. LTD.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>THEOPHILUS
KPORVIE, ESQ., OF POUZING &amp; ASSOCIATES, ACCRA, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/
APPLICANTS<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">NANA AKWASI AWUAH, ESQ., OF AB LEXMALL &amp;
ASSOCIATES, ACCRA, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>HER
LADYSHIP JUSTICE JENNIFER ABENA DADZIE<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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:normal;
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>The Plaintiffs/Applicants
(hereinafter, the “Plaintiffs”) bring this application under Order
11 Rule 18(1) (a) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004
(C.I 47) praying for an order to strike out the Statement of Defence
and Counterclaim filed on behalf of the Defendant/Respondent (hereinafter, the
“Defendant”) for failing to disclose a reasonable defence to the claim of the Plaintiffs
and any reasonable cause of action in its counterclaim. <o:p></o:p>The procedural background to this case in
brief is as follows.&nbsp; On November 3,
2016, the Plaintiffs took out a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim against
the Defendant seeking the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>“a.&nbsp;&nbsp; An order to set aside the mortgage of the
property.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:49.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1">b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Damages of trespass<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:49.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1">c.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Mesne profit of GH¢10,000.00 a month
from July 2016 until the date that the property is discharged and possession
given back to the Plaintiffs.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:49.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1">d.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; General damages<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:49.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo1">e.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Costs including solicitors fees.”<o:p></o:p>While the Defendant was yet to file its
Statement of Defence, the Plaintiffs filed, on January 7, 2017, a motion on
notice praying this Court to grant it an order of interim preservation of the
property in issue.&nbsp; Before this motion
could be moved, the Defendant by an application filed on notice before this
Honorable court on February 2, 2017 sought to set aside the Writ of Summons and
the accompanying Statement of Claim.&nbsp;
This Court in its ruling delivered on February 8, 2017 dismissed that
application with cost and went ahead to hear the motion for interim
preservation and granted same by its ruling dated February 21, 2017. &nbsp;The Defendant then filed its Statement of Defence
and Counterclaim on the February 24, 2017.&nbsp;
It is this process that Plaintiffs seek to strike out by the present
application.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According to counsel for Plaintiffs in paragraphs
4 and 5 of the Statement of Claim, Plaintiffs stated that one Mathias Titus
Glover who was the owner of the property passed away on February 24, 1996 and
that by a will dated January 9, 1990, the late Mathias Titus Glover willed the
property to the Plaintiffs. He stated further that in paragraph 12 of the
Statement of Claim, the Plaintiffs argued that the late Mathias Glover could
not have signed the</main>