FRANCIS BILLY ACQUAH vs. FAUSTINA AGGREY AND SEKONDI TAKORADI METROPOLITAN ASSEMBLY [2019]DLHC9245

FRANCIS BILLY ACQUAH vs. FAUSTINA AGGREY AND SEKONDI TAKORADI METROPOLITAN ASSE... [2019]DLHC9245

Date	2019-05-06
Suit No.	SUIT NO. E1/87/18
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC9245

P. BRIGHT MENSAH JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

JOHN MERCER FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

J.E.K ABAKAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2019]DLHC9245
																																						<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" >FRANCIS BILLY ACQUAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>FAUSTINA
AGGREY AND SEKONDI TAKORADI METROPOLITAN ASSEMBLY (DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
SEKONDI]<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. E1/87/18&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 6TH MAY,
2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JOHN
MERCER FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT/APPLICANT<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">

J.E.K
ABAKAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<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">

P. BRIGHT
MENSAH JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<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">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>The 1st defendant/applicant
herein per a motion on notice filed 14/06/18, prays for the dismissal or
striking out of the instant suit mounted by the plaintiff/respondent
principally on the ground that it is either frivolous or vexatious and or an
abuse of the judicial process.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is the case of the applicant that
the respondent had earlier mounted an action against the applicant at the
Takoradi Circuit Court.&nbsp; The Circuit
Court on 29/09/16 dismissed and awarded costs of Ghc1000.00 against the
respondent.&nbsp; It has been deposed to in
paragraph 6 of the supporting affidavit that the present suit is frivolous or
an abuse of the legal process.&nbsp;
Accordingly, the applicant invites the court to either dismiss or strike
out the suit.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Arguments in support of motion:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Arguing the motion, learned Counsel
for the applicant referred to the processes the respondent filed in the Circuit
Court [Exhibits A, B &amp; C] and submitted that in that case the
respondent sued for a declaration of title, recovery of possession, damages and
for an injunction.&nbsp; In the instant case,
Counsel argued further, the respondent now says that the area in controversy be
declared as an access road as he claims he has an easement over the same.&nbsp; Counsel disagrees and submits that a party
cannot bring his case to court in piecemeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel next contended the law to be
that if the parties and the subject matter is the same, a party cannot re-litigate
it, as he is estopped.&nbsp; To him, that
party is not only estopped by his earlier suit, but also from instituting a
fresh action to claim reliefs that could have been claimed in the earlier
suit.&nbsp; He relied on Naos Holdings v Ghana
Commercial Bank (2011) 1 SCGLR 492 Holding 1 and Sasu
v Amua Sekyi (2003-04) 2 SCGLR 742 Holding 3 @ 746 in support.&nbsp; He added that piecemeal prosecution of cases
is an abuse of the judicial process.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;Counsel finally referred to In
re: Sekyidumasi Stool; Nyame v Kesse (1998-99) SCGLR 476 and
submitted that the respondent is estopped from mounting the present action.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In conclusion, Counsel referred to
paragraph 5 of the affidavit in opposition and advocated that the respondent’s
claim for declaration of title having been dismissed he cannot turn round to
claim easement.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Arguments in opposition:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In response, learned Counsel for the
respondent said the motion contains seeds of its own destruction.&nbsp; He opined that the crux of the application is
whether the subject matter of a right of way the plaintiff is seeking in this
court is the same as in the previous suit.&nbsp;
He answered that it was not.&nbsp; He
explained that the basis for the present cause is that the applicant has
blocked a right of way prohibiting other users from using that portion of land.&nbsp; Thus, the present action is for an easement
or right of way, Counsel stressed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel next referred to paragraph 3
of the applicant’s accompanying affidavit and submitted that although it is
acknowledged that the respondent took a similar action at the Circuit Court,
“similar” cannot be interpreted to mean the “same”.&nbsp; He thus invites the court to critically
compare and contrast the reliefs in the Circuit Court with those claimed in the
High Court.&nbsp;&nbsp; He referred to the Ruling
of the Circuit Court [Exhibit C] and maintained that the
present suit is premised on that ruling.&nbsp;
He interpreted the ruling to mean that the respondent could not have
claimed for a declaration of title but can contest the right of way.&nbsp; He then referred to paragraphs 5 – 9 of the respondent’s
Statement of Claim filed 07/06/18 and advocated that the respondent has
initiated a legitimate action in this court</main>