GLORIA KABUTEY QUARSHIE & ORS VS REV. SAMUEL K. KABUTEY & ANOR
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI J
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Probate and Succession
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves an application to strike out a lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs challenging the grant of probate for the will of Samuel Kabutey. The court found that the plaintiffs' action was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the judicial process. The judge emphasized the importance of judicial economy and the principle that litigation should not be conducted piecemeal. The court applied the doctrine of res judicata, noting that the issue of probate had already been settled in a previous case. Ultimately, the court granted the application to strike out the plaintiffs' action, dismissed the suit, and awarded costs to the defendants. This ruling underscores the court's commitment to preventing unnecessary litigation and ensuring the finality of judgments.
RULING ON APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT PLEADINGS
1. 0 Background
1. 1 Judicial economy, sanctioned by the rules of court and practice demands that where there is a point of law which if properly taken and set down for prior determination may dispose of the suit or some substantial issue in the suit, it shall be prudent, efficient and cost saving for any of the parties or the court itself to choose that path and to dispense with calling witnesses of fact for full trial to reduce cost of litigation.
See Order 11 Rule 18; See also Apenteng v. Bank of West Africa [1961] GLR 196 (Holding 1). 1. 2 On 10 July 2018, defendant filed this application praying for an order to “strike out [p]laintiffs/[r]espondents’ instant action as not disclosing reasonable cause of action, being frivolous, vexatious and abuse of the Court’s process”. The application is grounded on Order 11 Rule 18(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the High Court Rules.
The application, obviously is directed at plaintiff’s present suit commenced by a writ of summons against the defendants, dated 8 May 2018 - Suit No. PA 659/2018. 1. 3 At the return date for hearing of the motion, counsel for plaintiff, the respondent was absent but had written a letter dated 10 August 2018 requesting for adjournment on grounds that he had travelled“outside jurisdiction” to Cape Coast. Having in mind Order 37 in general, and Order 1 Rule 1(2) of the Rules of Court, I disregarded the request and proceeded to hear the application.
After all, I took notice of the fact evident on record that the plaintiffs have responded to the application by an affidavit in opposition dated 23 July 2018. 2. 0 Parties’ case 2. 1 On the face of the papers that had been filed, I make the following findings of facts.
First, I find as a fact that respondents on 2011 filed a suit at the High Court, Accra – BFA 7/20121, against applicants.
I find as a fact that in his defence to the action, indeed among documents that the applicants filed with intention to rely on them, which they did in fact rely on during the trial was the probate that had been granted by the court in respect of the will of the late Samuel Kabutey.
See Exhibit SKK1. Indeed, the said probate was attached to applicants witness statement marked herein as Exhibit SKK2 that the trial court admitted as the evidence of the applicant with respect to that 2012 suit.
It is also a fact that the High Court dismissed respondents’ 2012 suit against the applicants.
2. 2 In their affidav