NII AYIKAI III vs. THE REGIONAL LANDS OFFICER AND NII ADAM KWATEI QUARTEY [2019]DLHC8904

Date	2019-12-17
Suit No.	SUIT NO. LD/0902/2018
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC8904

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE E. K. BOSOMPEM APENKWAH J.

DANIEL KUPUALOR HOLDING BRIEF FOR KWEKU PAINTSIL FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

ABUBAKARI NUHU FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT

FELIX QUARTEY FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT

[2019]DLHC8904
																																						<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" >NII AYIKAI III<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REGIONAL LANDS OFFICER AND NII ADAM KWATEI QUARTEY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (LAND DIVISION 5), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

SUIT
NO. LD/0902/2018&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; &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:
17TH DECEMBER, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>DANIEL KUPUALOR HOLDING
BRIEF FOR KWEKU PAINTSIL FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p>ABUBAKARI NUHU FOR THE 1ST
DEFENDANT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

FELIX
QUARTEY FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE E. K. BOSOMPEM APENKWAH J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>There is a motion on notice to dismiss
action or stay proceedings until the determination of the same suit brought by
the Plaintiff. Counsel for 2nd Defendant deposed to a supplementary
affidavit on 27th February, 2019 with annexed exhibits Q2 and Q3.
These are a ruling by Justice Abadah dismissing the Plaintiff’s action and the
writ of summons in that suit respectively. Counsel for the 2nd
Defendant/Applicant is now seeking to amend the relief he seeks in the instant
application. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He now wants this court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s
action on the grounds that an earlier suit between the same parties and in
respect of the same subject matter has been dismissed by the High Court
differently constituted (coram: Justice Anthony Kofi Abada). See Exhibit Q2.
For that reason, the present suit is caught by the principle of “estoppel per rem
judicatam” and same must be dismissed. The procedure adopted by the 2nd
Defendant/Applicant in bringing this application is flawed. <o:p></o:p>The Supreme Court in the case: Republic
vrs High Court Ex-Parte Aryeetey (Ankrah interested party) (2003-2004) 1 SCGLR
398 at holding (3) of the headnotes held as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“It
is not permissible for a Defendant who has entered a conditional appearance to
move the court to have the writ set aside because he has a legal defence, even if
unimpeachable, to the action, such an application is not also available to a
Defendant who seeks to rely on a plea of res judicata…… since this plea to be
successful, must satisfy certain requirements which can only be revealed
through evidence”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the instant case, the 2nd
Defendant/Applicant did not enter a conditional appearance. He in fact&nbsp; did enter an unconditional appearance. But
the question to be asked is this? Can one bring an application to dismiss an action
on the grounds of a certain defence even if unimpeachable after entering
appearance without more? <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The answer in my opinion is in the
negative. Such a party must proceed to plead the alleged unimpeachable defence
for the matter to proceed to directions stage under Order 32 of C. I.&nbsp; 47 of 2004 for the court to set that defence
down as an issue and give further directions as to how that issue must be tried.
Since this procedure has not been followed, I am unable to determine the
instant application on its merits. The application is incompetent and same is
therefore dismissed.<o:p></o:p>