BRIGHT K. KORKORYIE & 1 ANOR. vs. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & 12 ORS. [2019]DLHC10192

Date	2019-02-01
Suit No.	SUIT NO. IL/021/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10192

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS.)

[2019]DLHC10192
																																						<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" ><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-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">BRIGHT K. KORKORYIE &amp; 1 ANOR.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<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-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<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-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">THE ATTORNEY GENERAL &amp; 12 ORS.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<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%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO.
IL/021/2019&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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 FEBRUARY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<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">HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS.)<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;RULING
ON MOTION TO STRIKE OUT CLAIMS AND TO DISMISS SUIT<o:p></o:p>Ruling<o:p></o:p>It
is provided by the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules of 2004, C.I 47, precisely by order 11 rule 18 (1) (a) as follows:-<o:p></o:p>“The
Court may at any stage of the proceedings order any pleading or anything in any
pleading to be struck out on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause
of action or defence;… and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or
judgment to be entered accordingly”.<o:p></o:p>Sub
rule (2) also provides that no evidence whatsoever shall be admissible on an
application under sub rule (1) (a).<o:p></o:p>The
present application is brought under sub rule (1) (a) and it is a request on
the Court to strike out the claims endorsed on the plaintiff’s Writ of Summons
and Statement of Claim in respect of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th,
5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th
and 11th defendants on the ground that they disclose no reasonable
cause of action against the above-mentioned defendants and it is also a request
on the Court to dismiss the present suit in its entirety against the defendants
aforesaid&nbsp; and for any further orders as
the Court may deem fit. <o:p></o:p>In
his oral submissions before the Court, counsel for the defendants/applicants
stated among others that all the averments in the Statement of Claim relate to Korle-Bu
Teaching Hospital which is not a party to the substantive suit and that they do
not disclose any cause of action against the applicants.<o:p></o:p>The
counsel for the plaintiffs, in opposing the motion, asked the Court to dismiss
the application on the ground that it lacks merit. He said the applicants are
members of the governing board of Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital and that the said
governing board has the authority to act on behalf of the hospital and that no
action can be taken against the hospital without the involvement of the
governing board. <o:p></o:p>He
referred the Court to sections 33, 34 and 35 of the Ghana Health Service and
Teaching Hospitals Act, 1996, Act 525 and stated that the chairman of the
governing board, in this case the 4th defendant cannot escape the
responsibility for the decisions of the governing board. He said the
defendants/applicants herein are answerable to the claims of the
plaintiffs/respondents.<o:p></o:p>The
Court has looked at the claims endorsed on the Writ of Summons and has also
considered the submissions of both counsel. The Court has also adverted its mind
to the provisions of the Ghana Health Service and the Teaching Hospitals Act,
1996, Act 525 especially the section 33 which states <o:p></o:p>“The teaching hospitals established under the Hospitals Administration
Law, 1988 (P.N.D.C.L 209) are hereby, subject to this Act, continued in
existence as bodies corporate with perpetual succession, a common seal, power
to sue and be sued in their corporate names and power to acquire, hold and
dispose of property and to enter into&nbsp; a
contract or any other transaction”.<o:p></o:p>The
Court is thus of the opinion that since the above-quoted section is clear and
unambiguous that Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital is a corporate body, the
plaintiffs/respondents ought to have sued the said hospital instead of the
defendants/applicants herein.<o:p></o:p>The
defendants/applicants, being the governing board, chairman of the board and
board members of the said hospital are only officers who took certain actions
on behalf of the hospital in relation to the plaintiffs/respondents. It cannot
therefore be said that the applicants herein acted against the plaintiffs in
their personal capacities. <o:p></o:p>In
the light of the foregoing, the submission by counsel for the
defendants/applicants that the claims of the plaintiffs/respondents do not
disclose any reasonable cause of action against the defendants/applicants finds
favour with the Court and as such the Court strikes out the claims of the
plaintiffs as they relate to all the defendants including the 6th
defendant.<o:p></o:p>In
giving this order, this Court is guided by the decision of the Supreme Court in
Morkor vs Kuma [1998- 99] SCGLR p. 620. Indeed in applying the principle in the
said case to this instant case, this Court is of the </main>