MISS RITA EFFAH AND JOSEI OTI vs. IBRAHIM DODOO, EDDY PALMER AND QUEENCY CO. LTD [2019]DLHC9127

Date	2019-05-20
Suit No.	SUIT NO. FAL/772/15
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC9127

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE BARBARA TETTEH-CHARWAY (MRS)

FIDELIS OSEI DUAH FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS

GEORGE AGBEKO FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

[2019]DLHC9127
																																						<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" >MISS RITA EFFAH AND JOSEI
OTI (SUING PER THEIR LAWFUL ATTORNEY YOUNG EFFAH ADDAI OF H/NO. A45 TAIFA,
ACCRA)<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>IBRAHIM DODOO, EDDY PALMER
AND QUEENCY CO. LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT (LAND DIVISION), 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. FAL/772/15 &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:
20TH MAY, 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>FIDELIS OSEI DUAH FOR
PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

GEORGE
AGBEKO FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

HER
LADYSHIP JUSTICE BARBARA TETTEH-CHARWAY (MRS)<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>On 12th March 2019, after a
lengthy trial, this Court, relying on section 32(6) of the Stamp Duty Act, 2005
Act 689, struck out the instant suit on account of the absence of stamp duties
on the Powers of Attorney that were used by the Plaintiff’s attorney to
commence the action. <o:p></o:p>Subsequently, counsel for the Plaintiffs,
on the 26th of March 2019, filed this application for review of the Court’s
judgment under Order 42 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004, C.I.
47, which provides as follows;<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
(1) A
person who is aggrieved <o:p></o:p>(a)&nbsp;&nbsp; by a judgment or order from which an
appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or<o:p></o:p>(b)&nbsp;&nbsp; by a judgment or order from which no
appeal is allowed,<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>may upon discovery of new and important
matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within
that person’s knowledge or could not be produced by that person at the time
when the judgment was given or the order made, or on account of some mistake or
error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason,
apply for a review of the judgment or order..<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the affidavit in support of the
application for review and in the submissions made by Counsel for the Plaintiff
Applicants, he argued, strenuously, that by failing to advert its mind to sub
sections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of section 32 of the&nbsp;&nbsp; Stamp Duty Act 2005, Act 689, this Court erred in rejecting the Powers of
Attorney tendered in evidence by Plaintiffs’ Attorney. <o:p></o:p>