KLENAM CONSTRUCTION LTD. v. FALCON CREST INVESTMENT LTD. & ORS
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- HENRY KWOFIE, J.A (PRESIDING)
- AMMA A. GAISIE (MRS), J.A
- ERIC BAAH, J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This appeal arose from a High Court land dispute over Okpoi Gonno in Accra, an area long contested between the Kle Musum Quarter of Teshie and the Nungua Stool. After the claimant sought damages, re-entry, and related reliefs, the defendants moved to dismiss on estoppel per res judicata, citing prior judgments. On 9 July 2018, the High Court dismissed a recusal motion and, the same day, granted the dismissal application, effectively cancelling the claimant’s customary grant and registered title (GA54109). On appeal, Justice Eric Baah (J.A), sitting with Henry Kwofie, J.A (Presiding) and Amma A. Gaisie (Mrs), J.A, rejected a preliminary objection attacking the notice of appeal as void for lack of licence endorsement, clarifying that such non-endorsement is an irregularity if counsel holds a valid licence. The Court of Appeal held the High Court acted without jurisdiction by granting affirmative relief without a counterclaim and by ignoring the seven-day automatic stay under rule 27(3)(b), and also breached natural justice by delivering an unnotified ruling. The Court set aside the ruling, restored the claimant’s title, and remitted the damages claims.
BAAH, J.A
My Lords, by the endorsement on the writ of summons issued by Plaintiff/Appellant, hereafter Appellant, reliefs in the form and nature of special and general damages, interest on the special damages, an order for re-entry and costs, were sought against Defendants/Respondents, hereafter Respondents.
The 1st -3rd Respondents entered appearance to the writ on 12th February 2018, followed by their statement of defence on 8th March 2018. In the statement of defence, Respondents raised as a defence, estoppel per res judicata, based on previous judgments in their favour. On 10 April 2018, the said Respondents filed a motion on notice under Order 11 r 18, C.I. 47, and under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, to get the suit dismissed on account of abuse of the court process.
Appellant opposed the application on the strength of an affidavit in opposition dated 7 May 2018. It was then directed by the trial court that the parties should file written submissions, to aid a decision by the court on Respondents’ motion, which had the purpose of truncating the trial on technical grounds, to wit, on grounds of the defence of estoppel per res judicata.
Having apparently doubted the present or prospective impartiality of the presiding judge, Appellant sought to exclude him from umpiring the trial. To that effect, Appellant filed a motion on 7 May 2018 at 1:30 pm, to preclude the presiding judge from the trial. Twenty minutes later, that is at 1:50 pm on same day, it filed its written submission in response to Respondents’ motion to estopp it (Appellant), from prosecuting the suit. Respondents had earlier filed their written submission on 10 April 2018. On the advent of Appellant’s motion, Respondents filed an affidavit in opposition on 9 May 2018.
As a matter of logic, the trial court first heard Appellant’s motion, which sought to exclude the trial judge from the trial. On 9 July 2018, the trial court delivered itself of a ruling, by which the court dismissed Appellant’s motion to exclude the trial judge from the trial. Immediately after the said ruling, the court proceeded to deliver its ruling on the motion by Respondents. Respondents motion was granted in its entirety. The grant of that motion truncated the trial on grounds of estoppel, public policy, and abuse of court process. Appellant’s grievance with the said ruling led to the filing of the instant appeal, the grounds of which are stated hereunder.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
The grounds of appeal i