MOHAMMED DIABY vs. DANIEL AYENSU [2019]DLHC10304

Date	2019-11-20
Suit No.	SUIT NO.BL/567/2008
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC10304

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS).

MR KINGSFORD DEBRAH COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT PRESENT

MR. FELIX K. QUARTEY FOR DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS PRESENT

[2019]DLHC10304
																																						<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" >MOHAMMED
DIABY<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>DANIEL
AYENSU<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;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT
NO.BL/567/2008&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:
20TH NOVEMBER 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR KINGSFORD
DEBRAH, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT PRESENT<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;">

MR.
FELIX K. QUARTEY FOR DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS PRESENT<o:p></o:p>

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

</div>&nbsp;RULING ON MOTION ON NOTICE FOR AN ORDER
OF SECURITY FOR COSTS (ORDER 24 RULE 1 (1)<o:p></o:p>The defendants/applicants have
requested the Court for an order directed at the plaintiff/respondent to
provide substantial security for the costs of the defendant in these
proceedings. <o:p></o:p>The reasons of the defendants for their
request as can be gathered from their affidavit in support are that the
plaintiff is only a nominal plaintiff suing for the benefit of the estate of
one Alhaji Ibrahim Diaby and also that the 2nd defendant had already
obtained judgment against the plaintiff’s family in another suit entitled Madam
Mercy Lameley Lamptey vs. 1. Christopher Obeng 2. Saturatu Issah (suit no. L830
195 Coram: Agnes Dordzie J.) and further that costs so far awarded against the
plaintiff in this suit have never been paid by the plaintiff.&nbsp; The defendants/applicants also contend that
the plaintiff has no fixed place of abode and that his address endorsed in the
writ of summons is fleeting.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff/respondent has opposed
this application.&nbsp; He says that whatever
judgment that was obtained by the 2nd defendant has nothing to do
with this present suit.&nbsp; The plaintiff
has also denied that he is only a nominal plaintiff suing for the benefit of
the estate of the late Alhaji Ibrahim Diaby.<o:p></o:p>I have adverted my mind to order 24
rule 1(1) (b) of the High Court Rules, 2004 and I have also considered the
affidavits evidence of both parties and I am of the opinion that since I have
not had the benefit of reading the judgment which the defendants allude to in
paragraphs 6 &amp; 7 of their affidavit, I am not in a position to determine
whether that suit dealt with the same subject matter as it is in this present
suit.&nbsp; I am of the further opinion that
this present application lacks merit and so it should not be granted.<o:p></o:p>The application for an order for
security for costs is refused. There is no award of cost against the
defendants/applicants.<o:p></o:p>(SGD)<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE
ANANDA J. AIKINS (MRS)<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE
OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;</main>