DAVID AGYEKUM OFFEI vs. APOSTLE EBENEZER BOAHEN, MADAM ROSINA ARYEE, ELDER ABROKWA AND PASTOR JOSEPH AWUAH [2020]DLHC9239

DAVID AGYEKUM OFFEI vs. APOSTLE EBENEZER BOAHEN, MADAM ROSINA ARYEE, ELDER ABROK... [2020]DLHC9239

Date	2020-03-27
Suit No.	SUIT NO. E12/103/19
Citation No.	[2020]DLHC9239

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE P. BRIGHT MENSAH

EBO DONKOR FOR JOHN MERCER FROR THE DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS

STEPHEN ANTWI FOR GUSTAV ADDINGTON THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2020]DLHC9239
																																						<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" >DAVID
AGYEKUM OFFEI<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>APOSTLE
EBENEZER BOAHEN, MADAM ROSINA ARYEE, ELDER ABROKWA AND PASTOR JOSEPH AWUAH<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p><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">

SUIT NO. E12/103/19&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
27TH MARCH 2020<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>EBO
DONKOR FOR JOHN MERCER FROR THE DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS<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">

STEPHEN ANTWI FOR GUSTAV ADDINGTON THE
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE P. BRIGHT MENSAH<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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before me this morning for
consideration is an application filed by the 1st, 3rd and
4th defendants/applicants praying the court to strike out the
instant writ the plaintiff/respondent issued.&nbsp;
The application is premised on the sole ground that the action is
premature thus the court cannot exercise jurisdiction in the matter. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In a 8-paragraph affidavit
accompanying the motion, it has been deposed to in paragraph 5 thereof that the
plaintiff has not exhausted the grievance procedure outlined in Article 78 of the
Constitution of the Christian Divine Church to which all the parties belong and
that the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine the matter is
therefore temporarily ousted.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Speaking to the motion, learned
Counsel for the defendants/applicants referred to paragraph 6 of the
plaintiff’s statement of claim that avers that the church has promulgated a
Constitution that sets out a grievance procedure for aggrieved
members/persons.&nbsp; He specifically referred
to Clause
78(2) of the Constitution [attached to the application and marked Exhibit
AA] and marshalled the argument that Article 78 is valid and
mandatory and applicable and its non-compliance must operate to oust the
jurisdiction of this court, albeit temporary.&nbsp;
In support, he relied on Mensah v G.F.A, High Court, Cape Coast,
04/05/1988 (unreporterd).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel next referred to Tetteh
&amp; ors v Esslifie &amp; anr (2001-02) 1GLR 440 in which the
Supreme Court ruled:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“…………
where a preclusive or an exclusionary clause in the rules or regulations of an
association, club or union was directory only and left it open to a member to
have recourse to the courts in certain circumstances and in situations where
the justice of the case so required it would be held to be valid.&nbsp; However, where the rule or regulation was so
imperative or inflexible as to oust or completely exclude the jurisdiction of
the courts it would be held to be illegiti- mate.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He concluded that on the whole, the
present action is bad in law, premature and improperly laid before the
court.&nbsp; He thus invited the court to
strike out the writ.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Submissions in reply:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The plaintiff/respondent claims that
he is a long-standing member of the Christian Divine Church and holds an
executive position as a member of the Board of Finance.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>According to him, on or about 5th
July 2019 he petitioned the Chairman of the National Disciplinary Committee of
the church and copied same to the General Secretary and the Legal Advisor,
invoking Article 78 of the Church’s Constitution.&nbsp; It is his case that the petition was directed
at the Executive Chairman of the church, the 1st defendant herein,
against his conduct for breaching some provisions of the church’s constitution as
pleaded in paragraph 12 of his statement of claim.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is his case further that he waited
for 2 months without receiving any formal response.&nbsp; He therefore resorted to the court as he
claims the irresistible conclusion was that the National Disciplinary Committee
has either abandoned its duty or was probably an imaginary body that existed
only on paper, a wilful act to obstruct him from seeking justice.&nbsp; The door of justice has been shut against him
and has been effectively denied justice, plaintiff averred.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It has been submitted on behalf of the
plaintiff/respondent that when there was an abuse of internal grievance
procedure and an aggrieved person has been denied the right to be heard that
constitutes a brazen attack against the rules of natural justice.&nbsp; In that case, a recourse to the ordinary
courts becomes inevitable and justifiable, learned Counsel for the
plaintiff/respondent argued.&nbsp; In support
of this legal proposition, Counsel relied on Accra Hearts of Oak v G.F.A
(1982-83) GLR 111.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel further referred to Kwami
Tetteh’s “Civil Procedure – A practical Approach, p. 1128” and submitted
that both Article 140(1) of the 1992 Constitution and the case law confer
jurisdiction on the High Court to entertain the instant suit and pronounce on
it.<o:p></o:p>