THE REPUBLIC vs. CIRCUIT COURT THREE, KUMASI AND NANA GUAKRO EFFAH & KATE ADJEI, EX PAARTE: YAW AMPONSAH, DR. NICHOLAS AND KOFI ASAMOAH [2021]DLHC11733

THE REPUBLIC vs. CIRCUIT COURT THREE, KUMASI AND NANA GUAKRO EFFAH & KATE ADJEI,... [2021]DLHC11733

Date	2021-08-30
Suit No.	SUIT NO. C10/02/21
Citation No.	[2021]DLHC11733

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE FRANCIS OBIRI

MATTHEW APPIAH FOR THE APPLICANTS

JOHN KUMAH FOR THE INTERESTED PARTIES

NO REPRESENTATION FOR THE RESPONDENT

[2021]DLHC11733
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CIRCUIT COURT THREE, KUMASI AND NANA GUAKRO EFFAH &amp; KATE
ADJEI<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>EX PAARTE: YAW AMPONSAH, DR. NICHOLAS AND KOFI ASAMOAH<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANTS)<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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. C10/02/21&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
30TH, AUGUST 2021&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>MATTHEW
APPIAH FOR THE APPLICANTS<o:p></o:p>JOHN
KUMAH FOR THE INTERESTED PARTIES<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;">

NO REPRESENTATION FOR THE RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

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

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
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 0cm 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;The legal puzzle which has
led to this conundrum is part of a ruling delivered by Circuit Court three,
Kumasi on 20th August, 2020 in Suit No. A9/17/2017.&nbsp; The case is entitled Nana Guakro Effah &amp;
Another V. Yaw Amponsah and two others. The court was presided over by His
Honour Ebenezer Kweku Ansah, Circuit Court Judge.<o:p></o:p>To put this delivery in its
proper perspective, I wish to quote the portion of the ruling of the Circuit
Court three, Kumasi, in respect of the above case which has necessitated this
ruling. The trial judge held at page two in the penultimate paragraph of his
ruling as follows:<o:p></o:p>’’I have listened to both parties
and also read the cases cited by the applicant herein and I am satisfied that
the writ before me be discontinued for the one at the High Court to be pursued.<o:p></o:p>On the matter of the
counterclaim, same cannot be allowed to be pursued by the defendants as it will
mean, that the same matter is being litigated in two courts by the same parties
and this sins against the rules as it will be costly to allow the two
litigations to proceed in the courts. That is, the Circuit Court and the High
Court. There is also the possibility of two conflicting judgments and the issue
of estoppel. Thus, the application for discontinuance is allowed. The
defendants counterclaim is also discontinued and they can if they so desire
file to amend their defence to include their counterclaim at the High Court
where the applicants have chosen to pursue the matter.’’<o:p></o:p>It is this part of the order
of the Circuit Court three, Kumasi, by the learned trial judge discontinuing
the Applicants’ counterclaim suo motu which has triggered the Applicants motion
for certiorari and prohibition in respect of the order concerning their
counterclaim.<o:p></o:p>The Applicants filed their
motion on 11th December, 2020. They prayed the court for an order directed at
the Circuit Court three (3), Kumasi, quashing its decision, dated 20th August,
2020 in Suit No. A9/17/2017 entitled Nana Guakro Effah and Kate Adjei V. Yaw
Amponsah, Dr. Nicholas Amponsah, Kofi Amponsah and a further order prohibiting
the said Judge/Court from ever sitting on the said matter/case as per the
grounds set out in the accompanying affidavit.<o:p></o:p>The motion is supported by
affidavit and supplementary affidavit as well as exhibits.<o:p></o:p>The relevant paragraphs of
the affidavit in support of the application are as follows;<o:p></o:p>8. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the interested parties herein, subsequently applied to
discontinue the above mentioned Suit No. A9/17/2017 and a copy of the
application to discontinue that suit is also herewith attached as exhibit ‘C’.<o:p></o:p>9. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That we the applicants herein opposed the application for
discontinuance and a copy of the affidavit in opposition to that effect is also
herein attached as exhibit ‘D’.<o:p></o:p>10. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That notwithstanding our opposition, the Circuit Court granted
the interested parties the opportunity to discontinue their action.<o:p></o:p>11. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That after the interested parties discontinued their action, we
the Applicants herein decided to pursue our counterclaim against the interested
parties, since according to our counsel, our counterclaim was a separate and
distinct action from that of the action of the interested parties.<o:p></o:p>12.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the interested parties applied to relist or restore
their case and the Circuit Court granted that application and a copy of that
application for relistment also herewith attached as exhibit E.<o:p></o:p>13. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That although the Applicants herein once again opposed that
application, per our affidavit in opposition, a copy of which is herewith
attached as exhibit F, the Circuit Court relisted the interested parties case.<o:p></o:p>15.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That after the amendments have been effected, the interested
parties once again applied to have the action discontin</main>