SARAH KANTON VS CAL BANK LTD & 2 ORS
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE NICHOLAS M. C. ABODAKPI J.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involves a plaintiff's repeated attempts to challenge a 2010 court decision that dismissed her claim against the attachment of a property. The court ruled that the plaintiff's fresh writ filed in 2018 was barred by the principle of res judicata and constituted an abuse of court process. The court emphasized that the matter had been conclusively decided in previous proceedings and that allowing further litigation would be unfair and unjust. The court dismissed the plaintiff's action and awarded costs to the defendant, reinforcing the importance of finality in judicial decisions and the prevention of endless litigation on the same issues.
1. BACKGROUND(a) On the 22/06/2018, Plaintiff took a fresh writ from the Registry of this Court.
There is an accompanying statement of claim.
The following are the indorsements on the writ: Declaration that the order made on 16th June, 2010 in SUIT NO. BFS/37/2008 CAL BANK LTD VRS EKAB ENGINEERING LTD & ANOR CLAIMANT - SARAH KANTON, said to have dismissed the claim made by the said Sarah Kanton against the attachment of House No. 203 Konigs Street, South Odorkor, Accra, for sale in execution of the judgment in that suit is a NULLITY in that it was made without jurisdiction and or breach of the audi alteram partem rule in natural justice.
b) Order setting aside the Notice of Auction posted by 3rd Defendant for sale of House No. 203, Konigs Street South Ofankor, Accra on the authority of the 2nd Defendant on Monday 25th June, 2018. On 05/07 2018, a Notice of Appearance was filed on behalf of the 3rd Defendant.
The record also showed that on 28/06/2018, a Notice of Entry of Conditional Appearance was filed on behalf of the 1st Defendant/CAL BANK LTD. BY COURT: R U L I N G‘MCG’ And on 19/07/2018, a motion on notice to strike out pleadings pursuant to ORDER 11 Rule 18(1) (d) of C. I. 47 and under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, was filed on 1st Defendant’s behalf.
The brief history showed that 1st Defendant/Applicant (herein referred to as Applicant), did not proceed under ORDER 9 Rule 8 of C. I. 47/04, and his/its conditional Appearance became appearance simpliciter after the expiration of 14 days.
A preliminary opposition to this application has been dealt with earlier on.
This Ruling therefore, is in respect of the substantive motion filed by the Applicant.
2. RULES OF PROCEDURE AND THE FACTS ORDER 11 Rule 18(1) (d) of C. I. 47/04, under which the motion has been filed provides: “STRIKING OUT PLEADINGS 18(1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order any pleading to be struck out on the grounds that(d) It is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court, and may order the action to be STAYED or DISMISSED or judgment to be entered accordingly.The Applicant filed two affidavits, in support, the first on 19/07/2018, with the motion paper.
And the second, a supplementary affidavit was filed on 15/04/2019. The deposition in support in brief is to the effect that Applicant filed a writ in 2008, in the suit: BFA/371/2008, entitled: CAL - BANK LTD VRS EDMUND AGYAPONG BOSSMAN & EKB ENGINEERING And got judgment, Coram the High Court presi