GH - ANATASIA TANDOH & ANOR VS FELICIA ADAMA & ORS

The relief applicant is seeking in this motion is an order striking out the suit because it constitutes an abuse of the Court process and for disclosing no reasonable cause of action. The motion has been filed on 07/05/2018. Order 11 Rule 18(1)(a) of C. I. 47/04 has been cited as the rule of procedure that permits this type of application. The inherent jurisdiction of the Court has also been invoked. This could be gleaned from the motion paper.

There is an affidavit deposed to by Baba Rockson Salifu in support of the application. Firstly, it is stated that there is a case pending at the District Court, Madina that involves Madam Felicia A. Adama and Lydia Osei and others. The title has been stated as this: MADAM FELICIA A. ADAMA VS LYDIA OSEI VS 4 ORS. SUIT NO. A9/22/16. There are documents annexed in support; this Court has perused the same. It is said the suit is a rent dispute referred to the District Court. The 1st Defendant herein is said to be the Plaintiff in that case. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants herein are Plaintiffs in that suit.

Secondly, it has been averred that the dispute and subject matter is about tenancy. Besides, the deposition showed that allegations of improvement of the property have been raised. The issues and disputes over occupancy are the matters for determination. An order of valuation has been made and carried out, and yet the same issue has been raised in this Court by the Plaintiffs. There are Exhibits ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, and ‘E’ annexed, and I have examined them.

The rebuttals offered in the challenge to the reliefs could be found in what Anastasia Tandoh, the Plaintiff herein, has said in an affidavit in opposition. The deposition has been made on behalf of the 2nd Plaintiff herein. It showed that a declaration of title to the building project, as described in the writ, is a relief they are seeking in the case before the High Court. I have examined the writ; it has other declaratory reliefs in favor of the estate of Charles Adama and others, and other reliefs.

Secondly, it was argued that the two suits are not the same. It has been contended that in this action, the Plaintiffs are seeking ownership of the subject matter of the litigation, unlike the dispute at the District Court. Thirdly, it has been stated that bad faith has been shown by the Applicants, and the application before the Court is incompetent because it is not sanctioned by the rules of Court, especially the rule cited. There are Exhibits, which include photograph

ANATASIA TANDOH & ANOR VS FELICIA ADAMA & ORS

Areas of Law

RULING