GH - LATIFF IDDRISU & ANO VS INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ANO

The Applicant prays for an order of the court to struck out second plaintiff/ respondent’s pleadings. The applicants have brought this application under Order 11 Rule 18(1) (a) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, C.I 47.

The Applicant is of the firm belief that 2nd Defendant pleadings specifically paragraphs 5,7,8,9,10 and 11 and other paragraphs referencing 2nd Plaintiff in the statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action in law against the defendants. In her submission, Counsel for the Applicant stated that in the consideration of such applications, the law precludes affidavit evidence to prevent a trial on affidavits to determine whether there is a cause of action. She relied on the Dictum of Gbadegbe JSC in the case of Adam v Nuamah [2017-2020] 1 SCGLR

Further, Applicant’s Counsel submitted that facts pleaded in the above paragraphs in reference to the 2nd Plaintiff are not recognized by law and thus is incapable of giving rise to substantive rights which can be violated. Counsel is of the view that the 2nd Plaintiff by his pleadings has not been able to show that there has been an infringement or violation of his rights or obligations which calls for a determination by the courts, thus she finds no justiciable issue which needs to be resolved by the court.

Lastly, Counsel for the Applicant in her submission argued that per the nature of the relief being sought by the 2nd Plaintiff, i.e. assault and battery, there must be an act by a person against another person but she says plaintiff is a company that although has a legal persona, can however not be subjected to assault and battery.

The Respondent is opposed to the application. In his submission, Counsel for the Respondent stated that paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 was mistakenly included in reference to the 2nd Plaintiff, he however added that the pleadings are joint pleadings of both plaintiffs. He says 5, 10 and 11 though separate pleadings from the 1st Plaintiff’s, nonetheless are not independent of the 1st Plaintiff or the remainder of the pleadings. Respondent’s Counsel submitted that the pleadings being complained of completes 1st Respondent’s story as to how he happened to be on 1st Defendant’s premises.

Counsel for the Respondent stated that in the determination of such an application a court should enquire if (a) the case is fit to be inquired into even if it was weak in nature and (b) whether the grant will amount to driving the party away from the judgment seat. He referr

LATIFF IDDRISU & ANO VS INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ANO

Areas of Law

RULING