REPUBLIC vs. KINGLEY AMONOO ODUMEKYIR ANOMABO {RESPONDENT} EXPARTE KANTAMANTO AMONNU X1, EBUSUAPANYIN S.A.B. NKRUMAH AND OBAAPAYIN AGNES GRAVES ALL OF KROKESIM ANOMABO [2019]DLHC6378

REPUBLIC vs. KINGLEY AMONOO ODUMEKYIR ANOMABO {RESPONDENT} EXPARTE KANTAMANTO AM... [2019]DLHC6378

Date	2019-07-08
Suit No.	E12/183/2019
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC6378

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE EMMANUEL LODOH

CONSTANTINE KUDZEDZI ESQ. COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

KWADWO ADDEAH-SAFO ESQ. COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT/APPLICANT

[2019]DLHC6378
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KINGLEY AMONOO ODUMEKYIR
ANOMABO {RESPONDENT} EXPARTE KANTAMANTO
AMONNU X1, EBUSUAPANYIN S.A.B. NKRUMAH AND OBAAPAYIN AGNES GRAVES ALL OF
KROKESIM ANOMABO<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, CAPE COAST]<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">

E12/183/2019&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; &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: 8TH JULY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>CONSTANTINE
KUDZEDZI, ESQ. COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT/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">

KWADWO ADDEAH-SAFO, ESQ. COUNSEL FOR
THE RESPONDENT/APPLICANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE EMMANUEL LODOH<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="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 ON MOTION ON NOTICE TO STRIKE
OUT ACTION<o:p></o:p>

</div>Background <o:p></o:p>The
Applicant/Respondent (hereafter called Applicant) filed a motion on notice on
22nd May, 2019 for an order to commit the Respondent/Applicant (hereafter
called Respondent) for contempt under Order 50 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47). The Respondent did not however respond to the
application, but chose to assault the originating process per a motion dated
4th June, 2019 filed for and on his behalf by their lawyer. In the said motion
the respondent prayed for an order to struck out the action of the Applicants’
on the grounds that Applicants failed to “supply” the Registry of the Court
with their Tax Identification Number (TIN) as required by section 11 and Part 1
section 2 of the Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915). <o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the Applicant at the hearing of the application to struck out his
originating motion, also invoked similar grounds against the respondent’s
motion under what he described as a preliminary legal objection to the motion
to struck out the action, by contending also that the respondent’s application
to struck out his action did not also disclose his TIN. Given the respective
submissions of both counsels, the court, being of the view that, similar
questions of law had been raised, ordered both lawyers to file their legal
submissions to the question whether or not a party is required to
submit/disclose/show/supply their TIN under the aforementioned legal framework
or regime at the time of filing an action, and if so, the legal consequences of
a failure to submit/disclose/show/supply the TIN. At the time of writing this
ruling only the counsel for the respondent has complied with the order to file legal
submissions. <o:p></o:p>Facts<o:p></o:p>Before
proceeding to deal with the law, it is pertinent to set out the facts which are
discernable on the face of all the processes filed. Firstly it is quite
apparent on the face of the respective motions that none of the parties had
disclosed their TIN on the process. However, what is evident is that the
Respondent commissioned a search which disclosed that the Applicant did not
provide his TIN at the time he was filing his contempt application at the
Registry of the Court. No such conclusive certainty may be inferred in respect
of the motion filed by the Respondent in my view because the Applicant did not
file any affidavit in opposition against the motion filed by the Respondent. <o:p></o:p>Endorsement <o:p></o:p>The
first question to determine is whether or not a party is obligated in law to
endorse on the originating court process his or her TIN. Section 11 (2) thereof
of Act 915 provides as follows: <o:p></o:p>(2)
Except where otherwise directed by the Commissioner-General in writing, an
institution specified in the First Schedule shall request for— <o:p></o:p>(a)
a Taxpayer Identification Number from a person who conducts official business
with that institution <o:p></o:p>It
is further stated in Part 1 section 1(9) of the First Schedule of Act 915 that
the Taxpayer Identification Number System applies to the Courts. Finally Part 1
Section 2 (8) and (9) provides that:<o:p></o:p>“A person shall not be permitted (8)
to file a case with the Courts, unless that person quotes the Taxpayer
Identification Number issued in respect of that person under the System”.<o:p></o:p>These
two provisions under Act 915 in my view provide the statutory framework under
which the present legal issue will be discussed. Therefore in order to
understand what these provisions mean, it is important to put meaning these
provisions. It is trite law that in the construction of statutes preference is
given to the purposive approach to interpretation. In the case of Ghana Muslim
Representative Council and Other v. Salifu and Others [1975] 2 GLR 246 at 246,
the Court of Appeal stated as follows: <o:p></o:p>“In construing a statute, the primary
duty of the Court is to ascertain the general purport of that legislation from
the words actually used in the statute. This is what is called the golden rule
of statute interpretation formulated by Park B in his oft-quoted dictum in
Burcke v Smith [1836] 2 M &amp; W 191 at 195: <o:p></o:p>“It is a very useful rule, in the
Construction of a statute, to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the word used:
and to the grammatical construction, unless that is, at variance with the intentions
of the legislature, to be collected from the statute itself or leads to any
manifest absurdity or modified so as to avoid such inconvenience, but no
further.”<o:p></o:p>