REPUBLIC v. KINGLEY AMONOO ODUMEKYIR ANOMABO, EX PARTE: KANTAMANTO AMONNU XI & ORS

RULING ON MOTION ON NOTICE TO STRIKE OUT ACTION

Background

The Applicant/Respondent (hereafter called Applicant) filed a motion on notice on 22nd May, 2019 for an order to commit the Respondent/Applicant (hereafter called Respondent) for contempt under Order 50 Rule 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47). The Respondent did not however respond to the application, but chose to assault the originating process per a motion dated 4th June, 2019 filed for and on his behalf by their lawyer. In the said motion the respondent prayed for an order to struck out the action of the Applicants’ on the grounds that Applicants failed to “supply” the Registry of the Court with their Tax Identification Number (TIN) as required by section 11 and Part 1 section 2 of the Revenue Administration Act, 2016 (Act 915).

Counsel for the Applicant at the hearing of the application to struck out his originating motion, also invoked similar grounds against the respondent’s motion under what he described as a preliminary legal objection to the motion to struck out the action, by contending also that the respondent’s application to struck out his action did not also disclose his TIN. Given the respective submissions of both counsels, the court, being of the view that, similar questions of law had been raised, ordered both lawyers to file their legal submissions to the question whether or not a party is required to submit/disclose/show/supply their TIN under the aforementioned legal framework or regime at the time of filing an action, and if so, the legal consequences of a failure to submit/disclose/show/supply the TIN. At the time of writing this ruling only the counsel for the respondent has complied with the order to file legal submissions.

Facts

Before proceeding to deal with the law, it is pertinent to set out the facts which are discernable on the face of all the processes filed. Firstly it is quite apparent on the face of the respective motions that none of the parties had disclosed their TIN on the process. However, what is evident is that the Respondent commissioned a search which disclosed that the Applicant did not provide his TIN at the time he was filing his contempt application at the Registry of the Court. No such conclusive certainty may be inferred in respect of the motion filed by the Respondent in my view because the Applicant did not file any affidavit in opposition against the motion filed by the Respondent.

Endorsement

The first question to d