ADONTEN ROYAL ESTATE LTD. vs KADJEBI DISTRICT ASSEMBLY
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE JOAN EYI KING
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Company Law
- Constitutional Law
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The High Court dismissed an application to strike out a suit as an abuse of court process. The court found that while the plaintiff had previously filed a similar suit in the District Court, that court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case as it involved a limited liability company. The court held that the District Court's proceedings and judgment were null and void due to lack of jurisdiction. The High Court ruled that filing the new suit in the proper court with jurisdiction was not an abuse of process, as the lack of jurisdiction in the previous court constituted special circumstances warranting an exception to the principle of abuse of process. This case highlights the importance of proper jurisdiction in legal proceedings and demonstrates that re-filing a case in the correct court after a jurisdictional error is not necessarily an abuse of process.
This is an application for and on behalf of the defendant/applicant hereinafter referred to as applicant praying for an order dismissing the instant suit as being an abuse of the processes of the court.
I shall quote the relevant paragraphs as follows: 4. That the applicant was served with a writ of summons and a statement of claim issued at the High court on 18 th January 2023 at the instance of the plaintiff.
Exhibit 1. 5. That the applicant caused its counsel to enter appearance in the matter.
See Exhibit 2. 6. That the applicant is of the view that the instant suit is an abuse of the processes of court since there is a default judgment on the matter between the parties which judgment is currently being challenged at the District Magistrate, Kadjebi.
7. That plaintiff issued a writ of summons and statement of claim against the defendant/applicant at the District Magistrate, Kadjebi on 5 th October 2021 (Suit No. A2/14/2021) Exhibit 3. 8. That respondent subsequent to issuing the writ at the District Magistrate Kadjebi obtained default judgment against the applicant herein.
Exhibit 4, copy of the judgment.
9. The plaintiff/judgment creditor commenced processes at the District Magistrate to execute the said judgment.
See Exhibit 5 a copy of the Formal Decree.
10. Being notified of the said default judgment, applicant herein applied to the District Magistrate, Kadjebi to set aside the said default judgment.
See Exhibit 6 copy of the application.
11. That before applicant herein could move the said application seeking to set aside the default judgment, respondent herein raised a preliminary objection opposing the moving of the said application.
12. Applicant herein responded to the said preliminary objection whereupon the court took a date to rule on the said preliminary objection.
13. That District Magistrate gave its ruling on the said preliminary objection refusing the objection raised.
Exhibit 7 a copy of the ruling.
14. That dissatisfied with the said ruling, respondent herein filed a notice of appeal at this Honourable Court, challenging the ruling of the District Magistrate.
Exhibit 8, copy of the Notice of Appeal.
15. That further to this, the respondent herein also filed a motion for stay of proceedings at the District Magistrate pending the determination of the interlocutory appeal.
Exhibit 9 a copy of the motion.
16. That the applicant herein did not oppose the said motion whereupon the motion was duly granted by the co