MET CAPITAL GROUP LIMITED vs. GUARANTY TRUST BANK (GHANA) LTD. & LINKSFIELD RIDGE REALTY LTD. [2018]DLHC9215

MET CAPITAL GROUP LIMITED vs. GUARANTY TRUST BANK (GHANA) LTD. & LINKSFIELD RI... [2018]DLHC9215

Date	2018-06-06
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM/OCC/0649/2016
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC9215

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE JENNIFER ABENA DADZIE

ALFRED NII ADJIN MENSAH ESQ. OF HESSE & HESSE OSU ACCRA COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

EMMANUEL BRIGHT ATOKOH ESQ. OF EBA LAW CONSULT OSU ACCRA COUNSEL FOR 1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2018]DLHC9215
																																						<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" ><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>MET CAPITAL GROUP LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GUARANTY TRUST BANK (GHANA) LTD.&nbsp; &amp; LINKSFIELD RIDGE REALTY LTD.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>SUIT NO. CM/OCC/0649/2016&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 6TH JUNE, 2018<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>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ALFRED NII ADJIN MENSAH, ESQ., OF HESSE
&amp; HESSE, OSU, ACCRA, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm;margin-left:0cm;margin-right:.2pt">

EMMANUEL BRIGHT
ATOKOH, ESQ., OF EBA LAW CONSULT, OSU, ACCRA, COUNSEL FOR 1ST
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

<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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
this Motion on Notice for Leave to Recall Defendant’s Witness to tender
documents, I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions
put forward by the parties to the suit in the affidavit evidence placed before
the Court as well as the oral submissions of both Counsel on their behalf
before this Court.&nbsp; I have also considered
the relevant provisions of the law to include the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules,
2004 (C.I. 47) and
its amendment, the High Court (Civil Procedure) (Amendment)
Rules, 2014 (C.I. 87), the
Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) (hereinafter, the “Evidence
Act”) and the case law and authorities on this matter.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>Before delving into the motion, I would like
to address certain specific averments contained in the Affidavit in Opposition
sworn to and relied on by counsel for 1st Defendant in opposing the
present application.&nbsp; [See, particularly,
the paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 12 and 13 of the
said Affidavit].&nbsp; I am of the
respectful view that the tenor of these depositions infringe the rules of Court.&nbsp; Order 20 Rule 9 of the High
Court Civil Procedure Rules, (2004), C.I. 47 provides:<o:p></o:p>“9.
The Court may order any matter which is scandalous, offensive, irrelevant or
otherwise oppressive to be struck out of an affidavit.”<o:p></o:p>In
order that I may not be misunderstood, whilst the Court concedes that the 1st
Defendant and its Counsel have the right to disagree with the Court, to my mind
the disagreement cannot be anchored on misrepresentations and veiled emotional
innuendo. Clearly most of the depositions referenced above are scandalous and
offensive to the Court as well as irrelevant and therefore ordinarily ought to
be struck out. &nbsp;I wish to
remind Counsel for 1st Defendant that in the case of The Republic v.
High Court Judge, Kumasi: Ex Parte Hansen Kwadwo Koduah; Paragon Investment
Limited – Interested Party [Civil Motion No: J5/10/2015] the Supreme
Court established that lawyers owe it as a duty to assist the court in
maintaining that litigation is conducted in a civil manner devoid of indecent
attacks on opponents or parties to the litigation and to project the profession
as the most honourable one<a href="file:///C:/Users/aggie/Desktop/new%202020/2018%20judgements%20of%20Justice%20Jennifer%20Dadzie/ABENA%20DADZIE%202018/MET%20CAPITAL%20GROUP%20LIMITED%20VS%20GUARANTY%20TRUST%20BANK%20(GHANA)%20LTD.%20%20&amp;amp;%20LINKSFIELD%20RIDGE.docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a>