MENDS METAL WORKS LTD. v. ODONKOR

JUDGMENT

MARFUL-SAU, JA:-This appeal is against the ruling of the High Court sitting at Sekondi on the 20th July, 2010. In the said ruling the trial High Court dismissed the appellant claim under Order 11 Rule 18 on grounds that the action commenced by the appellant was an abuse of the court process; the reason being that the issue raised in the action had been determined by the High Court in a matter appealed from the District Court.

The brief facts of this case are that in 1977, the defendant/ respondent herein to be called the respondent brought an action against one Mr. Mends at the District Court, Sekondi and obtained judgment against the said Mr. Mends. Dissatisfied with the judgment Mr. Mends appealed to the High Court Sekondi and the appeal was dismissed on the 6th of November 2008. It is necessary to state that the dispute between the parties was the ownership of plot number 57, Kokompe Layout, Takoradi. The record shows that at the trial in the District Court which went on appeal to the High Court, the said Mr. Mends defended the action by relying on a lease document dated the 25th July 1990 and made between the Shama-Ahanta East Metropolitan Assembly on one part and Mends Metal Works Ltd, which acted through its Managing Director, P.K. Mends, the defendant in the action at the District Court.

Then on the 17th December 2008, after Mr. Mends had lost the appeal in the High Court, Mends Metal Works Ltd commenced this very action against P. T. Odonkor claiming the following:-

‘’i) Declaration of title to plots No 54 & 57 Kokompe- Takoradi.

ii) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents and assigns from interfering with plaintiffs’ ownership, possession and control.

iii) Order directed at the defendant from doing any act inconsistent with plaintiffs’ ownership and control of the said plots.

iv) General Damages for trespass.’’

The trial High Court on the 20th July 2010 in a ruling dismissed the action under Order 11 r 18 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, CI 47. It is against this ruling that the plaintiff/ appellant to be called appellant has appealed to this court, praying that the ruling be reversed. In the original notice of appeal at page 66 of the record two grounds were formulated as follows:-

‘’i) Ruling is not supported by evidence on record.

ii) The learned judge failed to have regard to the corporate nature of Mends Metal Works Ltd as opposed to Mr. Mends as a defendant in Suit No. E1/5/06 sub-nom P. T. Odonk