On 20th February 2019, the Plaintiff brought an application for interlocutory judgment in default of defence against the first Defendant.
In opposing the application, the defendant’s counsel argued that this case is non-existent for which reason, the current application is incompetent.
For a clearer understanding of the issues, I will endeavour to give a brief background of the case.
In 2013, the Plaintiff commenced an action against the Defendants in Suit No. FAL/862/13. When the suit reached the Direction Stage, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Discontinuance on 14th August 2017 and proceeded to institute a new writ on 21st August 2017) for the same reliefs.
After entering an appearance for the first Defendant, counsel for the Defendants successfully applied to this Court to strike out the Plaintiff’s writ on the basis that there was a simultaneous suit filed by him in another Court.
When the parties went back to the other court, being the Human Rights Court ‘1’, the presiding judge, Her Ladyship Justice Gifty Agyei Addo J. found that since the Plaintiff filed the notice of discontinuance to discontinue Suit No. FAL/862/13 which was pending before the Human Rights Court, the suit had been struck off the court’s list and it was no longer a pending matter in her court.
The Plaintiff then came to this court to file an application for the restoration of the matter which had earlier been struck out.
The said application was on notice, but the Defendants filed no affidavit in opposition, so the court proceeded to grant the application to restore the suit to the court’s list. Because the first Defendant did not file his defence after entering appearance, the plaintiff filed the present application for judgment in default of defence.
In opposing the application, the defendants grounded their objection on the fact that the suit which was struck out ended the life of the writ and an application could not be used to resurrect the very matter which had been disposed of.
I have carefully considered the application and in my view the following issues require determination.
a. Whether the order of this Court presided over by Her Ladyship Elizabeth Ankamah striking out the suit was void? b. If so, whether a judge of coordinate jurisdiction can set aside the orders of another judge? c. Whether the order restoring the present suit is a nullity in view of the earlier order striking out the suit? Whether the order of this Court presided over by Her Ladyship Elizabe
