MARGARET ASIEDU vs THOMAS QUARCOOPOME

By a motion on notice filed on 21st February 2023, the Defendant/Applicant (hereafter called the Applicant) prays this Honourable Court to strike out paragraphs 2, 11, 11(a), 11(b), 12, 12(a), 12(b), 12(c), 12(d), 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21 of the Statement of Claim filed on 22nd June, 2022 by the Plaintiff/Respondent (hereafter called the Respondent) on the grounds that “they disclose no reasonable cause of action” against the Applicant and subsequently prays that the Court dismisses the suit against the Applicant.

The application is undergirded by Order 11 Rule 18 (1) (a) of C.I. 47 which provides:

Striking out pleadings

“18. (1) The Court may at any stage of the pleadings order any pleading or anything in any pleading to be struck out on the grounds that

(a) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence;”

To justify and fortify the application, Counsel for the Applicant cites the case of SPOKESMAN (PUBLICATIONS) LTD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL [1974] 1 GLR 88-93 where Azu Crabbe C.J., quoted with approbation, the definition of “cause of action” by Diplock L.J. in LETANG v. COOPER [1965] 1 Q.B. 232 as –

“simply a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person.”

The learned Counsel also cites GHANA MUSLIMS REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL & ORS v. SALIFU & ORS [1975] 2 GLR 246-265 where it was held that:

“A pleading will only be struck out under the rule in a plain and obvious case where it is apparent that even if the facts are proved, the Plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs he seeks”

It is the Applicant’s case that the Respondent cannot rely on mere speculation to institute the instant action against him and that, the particular paragraphs the Applicant wants to be struck out are such that, even if they are proved, they cannot be enforced against him as he has no interest in the property whatsoever and has been wrongly sued. The Applicant further submits that it will be in the greater interest of justice and the spirit of Order 1 Rule 1(2) of C.I. 47 if the paragraphs listed on the motion paper are struck out and the suit is dismissed against him.

On the other hand, the Respondent, being opposed to the Application submits that “a cause of action” is a special term that has been clearly defined in the case of SPOKESMAN (PUBLICATIONS) LTD VRS. ATTORNEY GENERAL (supra).

Counsel for the Respondent submits that, in the pleadings, the Respondent avers that she is the own