LARRISON MUSTAPHA vs. REV. JAKES KWARTENG ACHEAMPONG [2020]DLHC16418

Date	2020-10-12
Suit No.	SUIT NO. LD/0299/2020
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC16418

HIS LORDSHIP K. A. GYIMAH

DAVID AMETEFE WITH GRACE MARIA SWANIKER FOR PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT.

PORTIA AHIAWORDOR FOR PROSPER NYAHE FOR DEFENDANT/ APPLICANT.

[2020]DLHC16418
																																						<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" >LARRISON MUSTAPHA <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>REV. JAKES KWARTENG ACHEAMPONG <o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT NO. LD/0299/2020&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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:
12TH OCTOBER 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>DAVID
AMETEFE WITH GRACE MARIA SWANIKER FOR PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

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

</div>Introductory
Remarks<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;I will commence this ruling by quoting
a paragraph from the dissenting opinion of Francois JSC in Dzotepe v. Hahormene III
[1987-88] 2 GLR 681 at 701 where he stated as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“There is no denying that a judgment
obtained by fraud is in the eyes of the court no judgment, as it is not founded
on the intrinsic merits of the case, but is borne of an attempt to overreach
the courts by deceit and falsehood. … But the fact that courts abhor fraud should
not make them insensitive to the just claims of victorious parties. The
judicial edifice was not constructed to lend a ready ear to every cry of fraud
from suitors who have lost on the merits. If charges of fraud are not examined
closely, the stratagem would subvert the very administration of justice and
undermine the hallowed principle that a victorious party is entitled to the
fruits of his judgment and should not be deprived of his victory without just
cause. In effect, fraud must be clearly set out and effectively established. If
this requirement is satisfactorily discharged, the edifice erected on it
however imposing must fall, but short of this, a solemn declaration in a
party’s favour by a competent court should not be lightly disturbed.” <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The above was quoted with approval by
Adinyira JSC when delivering the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in Osei
Ansong &amp; anor v. Ghana Airport Company Ltd. [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 25.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Procedural
History<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;By a writ of summons issued on 19th
December 2019, the plaintiff claimed the following reliefs against the
defendant:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:54.0pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-36.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">i.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-feature-settings: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
A declaration that the judgment
obtained by defendant dated 3rd January 2017 in Suit No.
FAL/388/2014 was obtained by fraud.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:54.0pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-36.0pt;line-height:150%;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">ii.