FERYUST LTD. vs. OHENE AGYEKUM ALIAS 2 GUYS [2019]DLHC5455

Date	2019-01-14
Suit No.	SUIT NOT. C1/17/20110
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC5455

FRANCIS OBIRI (HIGH COURT JUDGE)

CHARLES AGBANU FOR RESPONDENT

KWAME ADOM APPIAH FOR APPLICANT

[2019]DLHC5455
																																						<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" >FERYUST LTD.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>OHENE AGYEKUM ALIAS 2 GUYS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">SUIT
NOT. C1/17/20110&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;14TH JANUARY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>CHARLES
AGBANU FOR RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

KWAME
ADOM APPIAH FOR APPLICANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>FRANCIS
OBIRI (HIGH COURT JUDGE)<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 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>On 8th November, the defendant/applicant
hereinafter called the applicant filed the instant application through his counsel.
The gravamen of the application is that, the plaintiff action should be
dismissed for being an abuse of the court process.&nbsp; The application is supported by
affidavit.&nbsp; The main contention of the
applicant can be found in paragraphs 6, 8 and 9.&nbsp; I will quote them in this ruling.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(6)
That I have been advised and verily believe same to be true that, the
plaintiff, having pleaded fraud in order to challenge and have a consent
judgment entered in my favour set aside, he is not permitted to set up any
other reliefs in this particular suit except on the issue of fraud and fraud
only.<o:p></o:p>(8)
That I am advised and verily believe same to be true that, until and unless the
valid consent judgment entered by the High Court in 2002, Exhibit OA is set
aside, a court of coordinate &nbsp;jurisdiction lacks jurisdiction to make
pronouncement or orders to adversely affect the potency of Exhibit OA2.<o:p></o:p>(9)
That I am advised and verily believe same to be true that, the plaintiff having
put in several other issues apart from the one touching on fraud, the writ sins
against the time honoured principle that when a judgment is challenged on the basis
that it was procured by fraud, the court is not entitled to entertain any other
issue but that of fraud alone.&nbsp; The
motion was moved on 18th December 2018.&nbsp; Counsel for the applicant in moving the
motion relied on the motion paper and the supporting affidavit.&nbsp; He also relied on decided authorities
including the case of Okwei Mensah
(deceased) (Acting by Adumuah&nbsp; Okwei V Laryea (deceased) Acting by Ashieteye
Laryea (deceased) &amp; Anor (2011) 1 SCGLR 317.<o:p></o:p>He
contended that, since the plaintiff did not limit his reliefs to only the issue
of fraud in respect of the consent judgment but added other reliefs, the
plaintiff has abused the court process.&nbsp;
Therefore, the writ should be struck out or dismissed.<o:p></o:p>He
also attached exhibits to the application and referred to them in his
submission.&nbsp; I have gone through the
exhibits, the application and all the processes filed in this case.<o:p></o:p>The
application was filed on 8th December 2018.&nbsp; The plaintiff/respondent hereinafter called
the respondent counsel was served on 8th November 2018 as per the
affidavit of service commissioned on 9th November 2018.&nbsp; He did not file any affidavit in opposition.&nbsp; It does not however, mean an automatic grant
of the application.<o:p></o:p>In
the case of Amidu (No) V Attorney
General, Waterville Holdings&nbsp; and Woyome
(No1) (2013-2014) 1 SCGLR 112, the Supreme Court &nbsp;held per Dotse JSC, as follows: “The duty of a trial court judge or magistrate
is to ensure that, cases brought up before them are not only legitimate but,
based on sound principles of law. &nbsp;A trial
judge or Magistrate is not to accept, hook, line and sinker claims brought
before it on the basis that the defendants have not put up a defence. &nbsp;A court must therefore examine the documents
before her and interrogate the issues before granting a relief.&nbsp; The court should not be in a haste to grant a
relief without critically examining the documents before her.&nbsp; This applies to even ex-parte motion which is
one sided”.<o:p></o:p>I
will use the same legal lenses as admonished above to examine this application.<o:p></o:p>I
have seen from the endorsement by the respondent that apart from the relief
that the consent judgment should be set aside on grounds of fraud, he has added
other reliefs.&nbsp; Now the issue is as to
whether same should lead to the dismissal of the plaintiff writ of summons.<o:p></o:p>It
is trite that, a consent judgment obtained before a court of competent
jurisdiction can be set aside on grounds of fraud, mistake or any vitiating
factor; regardless of its finality.<o:p></o:p>Therefore,
if a High Court gives a consent judgment, a fresh action before a High Court
will lie to impugn the consent judgment on grounds of fraud, mistake or other
vitiating factors, it is therefore not a matter of appeal.<o:p></o:p>See: Republic V High Court (Commercial
Division) Accra Ex-parte, The Trust Bank Ltd (Ampomah Photo Lab Ltd &amp; 3 Ors
Interested parties) (2009) SCGLR 164.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>