EDC STOCKERS LIMITED vs. NANA AMOTO MENSAH [2019]DLHC10210

Date	2019-04-15
Suit No.	SUIT NO. IL/0088/2018
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10210

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).

MAAME BARNIEH ADU-AMOAH HOLDING BRIEF FOR JUSTICE MINKAH PREMOH

COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF PRESENT

THEODORA TAWIAH AMARH HOLDING BRIEF FOR THADDEUS SORY

COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPLICANT PRESENT

[2019]DLHC10210
																																						<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" >EDC STOCKERS LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA AMOTO MENSAH<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;">

SUIT
NO. IL/0088/2018&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
15TH APRIL, 2019<o:p></o:p>

<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">THEODORA
TAWIAH AMARH HOLDING BRIEF FOR THADDEUS SORY, COUNSEL FOR THE
DEFENDANT/APPLICANT PRESENT<o:p></o:p>

<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;MOTION
ON NOTICE FOR AN ORDER TO STRIKE OUT PLAINTIFF’S WRIT OF SUMMONS AND STATEMENT
OF CLAIM UNDER ORDER 11 RULE 18 (1) (d) OF CI 47 <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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;The High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules,
2004 provides per Order 11 rule 18 sub rule 1 (d) as follows:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
“The Court
may at any stage of the proceedings order any pleading or anything in any
pleading to be struck out on the ground that <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;d. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It is otherwise an abuse of the process of
the Court”.<o:p></o:p>The defendant/applicant hereinafter
called the defendant brings the present application under the rule quoted supra
and requests the Court to strike out the claim of the plaintiff/respondent
hereinafter called the plaintiff because to the defendant it is an abuse of the
Court process in that the plaintiff had earlier on commenced a similar action
or suit against the defendant by the issuance of a Writ of Summons and
Statement of Claim with Suit No. IL/0013/2016 for the same reliefs endorsed on
this present suit and that the said matter was set down for trial on the 25th
day of October, 2017 but the plaintiff’s only witness did not turn up for the
trial and the Court not being satisfied with the explanation of Counsel for the
plaintiff, struck out the plaintiff’s case under Order 36 rule 1 (2) (b) of the
High Court rules, mentioned supra.<o:p></o:p>In her submissions before this Court, Counsel
for the defendant stated that the plaintiff ought to have taken steps after
fourteen days of the order dismissing its suit to have the said order set aside
instead of waiting for more than six (6) months only to institute a fresh
action against the defendant for the same reliefs in another Court. <o:p></o:p>She described the plaintiff’s action as
an abuse of the Court’s process and thus requested this Court to strike out the
plaintiff’s Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff vehemently opposed this
request and stated that the defendant’s application is misconceived.&nbsp; The plaintiff also stated further that the
fact that its earlier action was dismissed by the Court did not estop the
plaintiff from reinstituting the action because the dismissal was not done
after the determination of the said suit on its merits.<o:p></o:p>This Court has considered the
affidavits of both parties and the submissions of both Counsel and it has also
adverted its mind to the exhibits annexed to the defendant’s application and
the Court is of the opinion that Exhibit ‘B.A.2’ clearly shows that the first
suit which was dismissed by the Labour Court 1 on the 25th day of
October, 2017 was not determined on its merits and therefore the plaintiff
cannot be estopped from reinstituting or re-litigating the matter.<o:p></o:p>Both Counsel in their submissions
referred to the case of the Republic vs
National House of Chiefs ex-parte Odeneho
Akrofa Krukoko II [2010] SCGLR page 134 holding one and Counsel for the
plaintiff also referred to the case of Foli
vs Agya Atta (1976) 1 GLR 194 holding 4. This Court has read both
authorities and it is of the opinion that the issue of estoppel does not arise
in the present app</main>