STEPHEN NANA AMPONSAH vs. KOFI OPOKU ASANTE [2018]DLHC10338

Date	2018-12-18
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ/425/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC10338

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).

OWUSU HOLDING BRIEF OF BRIGHT OKYERE-ADJEKUM

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF

WINNIFRED ODOI QUARSHIE HOLDING BRIEF OF G.N.K. FIXON-OWUSU FOR THE DEFENDANT

[2018]DLHC10338
																																						<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" >STEPHEN NANA AMPONSAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KOFI OPOKU ASANTE<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT
NO. GJ/425/2018&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:
18TH DECEMBER,
2018<o:p></o:p>

</div><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso-fareast-language:
EN-GB">COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">OWUSU HOLDING BRIEF OF BRIGHT OKYERE-ADJEKUM,
COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">WINNIFRED
ODOI QUARSHIE HOLDING BRIEF OF G.N.K. FIXON-OWUSU FOR THE DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE
ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).<o:p></o:p>

</div>MOTION TO STRIKE OUT PLEADINGS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;X&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;X&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;X&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;
X<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;R
U L I N G<o:p></o:p>The
defendant in this present application is requesting this Court to strike out
the pleadings in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the plaintiff’s reply to the defendant’s
Statement of Defense because the defendant believes that the plaintiff by those
two paragraphs has departed from his original case or claims and is rather setting
up a new claim against the defendant.<o:p></o:p>The
defendant says that the fact that the plaintiff had a previous name is
inconsistent with the plaintiff’s statement of claim and to the extent of the
inconsistency, paragraph 8 of the plaintiff’s reply ought to be struck out on
grounds of departure.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The
defendant further claims that in paragraph 9 of the plaintiff’s reply, the plaintiff
is making an allegation of malice against the defendant and that this
allegation is inconsistent with the pleadings set out in the Statement of Claim
and therefore paragraph 9 of the reply should also be struck out on the grounds
of departure.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff, in his response, has opposed the request of the defendant/applicant
and has stated that the said paragraphs 8 and 9 of the plaintiff’s reply are
only to place the defendant on notice of the evidence the plaintiff will be
leading in the course of the trial, so as to rather avert the element of
surprise.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The
Court has considered the affidavits of both parties and the submissions of&nbsp; both counsel and it is of the opinion that
the present application is uncalled for and it is without merit because the
Court believes the plaintiff/respondent is at liberty to lead evidence to
establish the fact that he had a previous name. <o:p></o:p>In
the circumstances the application is refused and same is dismissed. No cost
awarded against the defendant/applicant.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(SGD)<o:p></o:p>