INTERCONTINENTAL GROUP (GH) LTD VS ZENITH BANK (GHANA) LIMITED
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP FRANCIS OBIRI ‘J’
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Tort Law
- Commercial Law
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Applicant filed a motion to strike out the Respondent's pleadings and dismiss the case for non-disclosure of reasonable cause of action. The Respondent opposed this motion. The court found that the Applicant failed to follow the correct procedure under Order 11 rule 18 of C. I 47 and that their application was not made in a timely manner. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and ordered the Applicant to pay GHS 5,000.00 in costs to the Respondent.
On 19th January 2024, the Defendant/Applicant (hereinafter called the Applicant) filed a motion before the court.
The motion is praying the court to strike out the Plaintiff/Respondent(hereinafter called the Respondent) pleadings and dismiss the instant suit for non-disclosure of reasonable cause of action pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
The motion is supported by affidavit.
The relevant paragraphs are as follows: 6. That the Respondent issued Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim on 13th January 2023, against the Applicant claiming the following reliefs: a. A declaration that the Applicant Bank owes the Respondent a duty of care and which duty has been breached.
b. Interest on the sum of US$425, 461. 5 at the commercial rate from 7th December 2022, until the date the sum of US$425, 461. 5 was remitted to Respondent’s business partners in Russia.
c. General damages.
d. Cost. 7. That the Applicant filed Statement of Defence on 3rd February 2023, and subsequently filed an amended Statement of Defence on 7th November 2023, pursuant to an order of this court dated, 1st November 2023. 8. That a careful perusal of the Respondent’s reliefs show that the Respondent’s action is based on negligence.
9. That a perusal of the entirety of the Respondent’s pleadings do not support an action for negligence.
10. That the jurisprudence of the Superior Courts is that in an action founded on negligence, the plaintiff must prove that defendant owed it a duty of care, that the said duty has been breached and that there has been a resultant damage.
11. That the Respondent has not pleaded any fact or made any allegation which suggests that the Applicant indeed owed a duty of care under these peculiar circumstances, breached the said duty of care and resultant damage has been caused.
12. That the Respondent has not pleaded any fact or made any allegation, which suggests that the Applicant is liable for the tort of negligence.
13. That the Respondent does not have any cause of action against the Applicant.
14. That the jurisprudence of the Superior Courts is that in an action or claim for negligence, the Plaintiff must plead the full particulars of the negligence.
16. That the failure to give particulars is fundamental and goes to the root of the suit, such that it warrants this Honourable court to dismiss the matter for non-disclosure of cause of action.
17. That the jurisprudence of the Superior Courts is that where a Plaintiff in an ac