FIDELITY BANK LIMITED vs. SAMUEL ADJEI & 2 ORS. [2018]DLHC3728

Date	2018-03-01
Suit No.	SUIT NO.BFS/292/14
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3728

ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

JUDY EDUSEI FOR KWAME OWUSU SEKYERE FOR PLAINTIFF.

FRANCIS KWABENA NYARKO FOR 1ST DEFENDANT.

[2018]DLHC3728
																																						<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" >FIDELITY BANK LIMITED<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SAMUEL ADJEI &amp; 2
ORS.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[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">

SUIT
NO.BFS/292/14&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; &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:
1ST MARCH, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>JUDY EDUSEI FOR KWAME
OWUSU SEKYERE FOR PLAINTIFF.<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">

FRANCIS
KWABENA NYARKO FOR 1ST DEFENDANT.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

ANGELINA
MENSAH-HOMIAH (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>Before
me is a motion on notice praying this court for an order of ejectment.<o:p></o:p>Before
counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant could start her submissions based on the
affidavit in support of the application, the court noticed that the said
affidavit had not in fact been signed by the deponent, even though a
commissioner of oaths had commissioned it. This raises a question of
irregularity on the face of the said affidavit.<o:p></o:p>The
case of the Republic v. High Court, Kumasi, ex parte Atumfuwa &amp; Anor (2000)
SC GLR 72 is relevant to the point raised.<o:p></o:p>In
that case, the Plaintiffs had filed an application for certiorari in the
Supreme Court to quash a portion of the ruling of the High Court.<o:p></o:p>The
parties filed their respective statement of case after which a date was set for
ruling on the date the ruling was to be delivered, the court discovered that
the affidavit in support of the application for certiorari was unsworn, leave
was granted for the affidavit to be regularised.<o:p></o:p>The
Respondent applied for a review of the order granting leave to the Applicant to
regularize the affidavit.<o:p></o:p>The
Supreme Court considered Rule 79 of the Supreme Court Rules 1996 ( (CI 16 and
came to the conclusion that the said rule does not employ words such as “void”,
“ voidable” “nullity”, therefore the decision to waive or not to waive the
non-compliance of whatever degree and nature, would lie with the court. taking
into consideration the circumstances of each case.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
Supreme Court came to a conclusion that the absence of a property sworn
supporting affidavit is not so fundamental that the application can be said not
to have commenced at all. The review application was dismissed.<o:p></o:p>In
effect, the Supreme Court was of the view that a court can exercise its
discretion to grant leave for a defective affidavit to be regularised,
depending on the circumstances of each case and by waiving the non-compliance.<o:p></o:p>Under
order 20 rule 7 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 C.I. 47, a
defective affidavit may be used in evidence notwithstanding any irregularity in
its form, with leave of the court.<o:p></o:p>In
the situation at hand, the court notes that the affidavit in support of the
application does not comply with order 20 rule 4 (5) of C.I. 47 which enjoins
the deponent to sign the affidavit. Order 20 rule 4 deals with the form of an
affidavit.<o:p></o:p>The
court is of the opinion that an irregularity in the form of an affidavit is not
a fundamental error and the same can be waived. <o:p></o:p>Accordingly,
the court exercises its discretion under order 81 rules (1) and (2) of C.I. 47
and waives the non-compliance as to the form of the affidavit.<o:p></o:p>The
Applicant is granted leave to regularize the affidavit in support of the motion
and to replace the defective affidavit. This must be done within one (1) clear
day.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the Plaintiff/Applicant may continue with her submissions at the next
sitting.<o:p></o:p>