NANA OKOGYE OTUO OTUAPUM III, EBUSUAPANYIN KWAMINA ACKON vs. ANDREWS KWAMENA BADWIE & 6 ORS [2023]DLHC17081

NANA OKOGYE OTUO OTUAPUM III, EBUSUAPANYIN KWAMINA ACKON vs. ANDREWS KWAMENA BAD... [2023]DLHC17081

Date	2023-03-22
Suit No.	SUIT NO. E1/117/22
Citation No.	[2023]DLHC17081

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE

BAFFOUR DWUMAH ESQ

CONSTANTINE K.M. KUDZEDZI ESQ

[2023]DLHC17081
																																						<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" ><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:-2.5pt;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:4.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;text-autospace:none">NANA OKOGYE OTUO OTUAPUM III, EBUSUAPANYIN
KWAMINA ACKON<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:-2.5pt;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:4.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;text-autospace:none">(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:-2.5pt;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:4.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;text-autospace:none">vs.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:-2.5pt;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:4.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;text-autospace:none">ANDREWS KWAMENA BADWIE &amp; 6 ORS<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:-2.5pt;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:4.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;text-autospace:none">(DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:-2.5pt;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:4.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;text-autospace:none">[HIGH
COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:-2.5pt;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:4.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:168.75pt 278.15pt;text-autospace:
none">&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt; margin-left: 4.5pt; margin-right: -2.5pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;text-autospace:none;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"><a name="_heading=h.gjdgxs"></a>SUIT NO. E1/117/22&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 22ND MARCH 2023<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE DR. RICHMOND
OSEI-HWERE<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm; margin-left: 4.5pt; margin-right: -2.5pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:normal;mso-pagination:none;text-autospace:none;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid black 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>This ruling relates to a
preliminary legal objection raised by counsel for the Defendants/Respondents to
the propriety of the Further Supplementary Affidavit and Supplementary
Statement of Case filed on 15/02/2023 by the Plaintiffs/Applicants.<o:p></o:p>Counsel for the Respondents
argues that by Orders 20 and 25 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004
(CI 47) each party in an injunction application is required to file an
affidavit and a statement of case and not affidavits and statements of claim. Thus,
failure on the part of the Applicant to seek leave of the court before filing
the Further Supplementary Affidavit and Supplementary Statement of Case make
the processes incompetent and same must be struck.<o:p></o:p>In a counter argument, counsel
for the Applicants say that the rule did not prohibit them from filing the
processes complained of without seeking leave of the court. That if the
drafters of the rules wanted parties to seek leave before filing the processes
complained of, they would have stated so as it was specifically stated in some other
rules relating to originating motions on notice.<o:p></o:p>The background fact leading
to this legal objection are that on 29th September, 2022 Plaintiffs/Applicants
instituted action against the Defendants/Respondents praying for declaration of
titles to lands, damages for trespass and perpetual injunction restraining the
Defendants, their agents, assigns and all who claim through them from having
anything to do with the lands in issue.<o:p></o:p>On the same day 29th
September, 2022 Plaintiffs/Applicants filed a Motion on Notice for an Order for
Interlocutory against the Defendants/Respondents. The application was supported
by an affidavit. Applicants also attached a statement of case pursuant to the rules
relating to injunction applications.<o:p></o:p>On 24th November,
2022 Applicants filed a Supplementary Affidavit in support of the Application.
They did so without leave of the court.<o:p></o:p>Defendants/Respondents filed
an Affidavit in Opposition on 10th January, 2023 and on 18th
January, 2023 they filed a Supplementary Affidavit in Opposition in response to
the Supplementary Affidavit in Support filed on 24/11/2022. The latter process
was filed without leave of the court. On the same 18/01/2023 a statement of
case was filed on behalf of the Defendants/Respondents.<o:p></o:p>On 15th February,
2023 Plaintiffs/Applicants </main>