NANA KWAME AMANKWAH VS ADWOA OFORIWAA & ORS

RULING ON A MOTION TO DISMISS THE PLAINTIFF’S SUIT AS AN ABUSE OF THE COURT PROCESS

[I] FACTS OF THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE[1] The Plaintiff herein has instituted this action against the three Defendants herein, seeking to set aside some judgment delivered by this Court with respect to the subject matter in issue in this instant writ.

Per the Plaintiff, the disputed land is a plot/parcel of land situate at Mmai Dzorn and alienated to the Plaintiff by the 3rd Defendant herein. [2] According to the Plaintiff, after the 3rd Defendant alienated the disputed plot to the Plaintiff, he proceeded to develop same and the Plaintiff is now duly occupying the disputed plot.

Nonetheless, the 1st Defendant managed to obtain judgment at the High Court in suit no. LD/1180/2016, against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants on the 2nd December 2021, with respect to this same disputed plot, when it was not the 2nd Defendant who was in possession of the disputed plot but the Plaintiff herein. [3] The Plaintiff stated his attention was recently drawn to the said judgment; and even though at all material times he was developing the disputed land, he was never sued in respect of the disputed property but rather, the 2nd Defendant, who had never laid adverse claim to the disputed property.

The Plaintiff again contended that even the 1st Defendant herein and the Plaintiff therein in suit no. LD/1180/2016 had also never laid adverse claim to the Plaintiff’s plot, and yet he managed to obtain judgment with respect to the disputed plot.

The Plaintiff thus concluded that the judgment obtained by the 1st Defendant against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and in respect of the Plaintiff’s plot was obtained by fraudulent means and ought to be set aside.

The Plaintiff thus particularized the fraud alleged and prayed the Court to grant the reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons. [II] 1ST DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE OUT THE PLAINTIFF’S SUIT[4] It is to this writ that the 1st Defendant applied to have paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Plaintiff’s statement of claim struck out; and in effect the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s action for being an abuse of the Court process; on the grounds, among others, that the 3rd Defendant, whom the Plaintiff purports was his grantor had no interest in the land because the Sowah Okpelor Din Family from whom the 3rd Defendant derived his so – called title had been deemed not to be owners of the land. [5] Also, the 1st Defendant’s grant was preserved under the Supreme