EBENEZER ACQUAH vs. MAAME ESI KWOFIE AND ISAAC BEN ACQUAH [2018]DLHC9240

Date	2018-04-25
Suit No.	SUIT NO. E12/43/16
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC9240

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE P. BRIGHT MENSAH

JOHN MERCER FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS

BAFFOUR DWUMAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2018]DLHC9240
																																						<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" >EBENEZER ACQUAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MAAME ESI KWOFIE AND ISAAC BEN ACQUAH<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, SEKONDI]<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">

SUIT NO. E12/43/16&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
25TH APRIL 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JOHN MERCER FOR THE DEFENDANTS/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">

BAFFOUR DWUMAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP
JUSTICE P. BRIGHT MENSAH<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:115%;
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>Before me this
morning for judicial consideration are 2 applications.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first, is
a motion for an order to dismiss/strike out suit under Order 11 r 18(1)(b)&amp;(d) of CI
47and or under the court’s Inherent jurisdiction.&nbsp; The second, is an application for order an striking
out writ under Order 11 r 18(1)(a) of CI 47. For lack of space and time, I
shall combine both applications and consider them as one, so to speak, since
both applications seek to speak to the same issue – dismissal of suit.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Now, Order
11 r 18(1), the anchor sheet on which the instant application hinges, stipulates:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “(1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order any pleading<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; or anything in any pleading to be
struck out on the grounds that:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:54.0pt;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph;text-indent:-18.0pt;line-height:
115%;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;mso-layout-grid-align:none;
text-autospace:none">(a)&nbsp;&nbsp; it discloses no reasonable cause of action or
defence; or<o:p></o:p>(b) it is
scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or<o:p></o:p>(c) it may
prejudice, embarrass, or delay the fair trial of the action; or<o:p></o:p>(d) it is
otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court, and may order<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the action to
be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The object of
this rule is to give the court unfettered judicial discretion at any stage of
proceedings but before judgment, to terminate a suit on the ground that it is
either manifestly frivolous or vexatious or discloses no reasonable cause of
action.&nbsp; On an application by a
Plaintiff, the court may dismiss the defence and judgment entered for him
because the defendant’s defence discloses no reasonable defence.<o:p></o:p>In an unreported
Ruling of this court in In Re: Parliementary Election Petition:
Samuel Adu-Gyamfi v Electoral Commission, High Court, Sekondi (Suit
No.E12/22/17) delivered, 2nd March 2017I did state the
law on the practice and procedure of Order 11 r 18(1) of CI 47 as that:<o:p></o:p>