SELINA AMPADU & 43 OTHERS v. SOCIETE AIR FRANCE
2025
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- ACKAAH-BOAFO JSC.
- BERNASKO ESSAH JA.
- AKROWIAH JA.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Aviation Law
2025
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This interlocutory appeal concerns whether a second lawsuit brought by 44 passengers against Air France for disruption of a connecting Paris–Munich flight was an impermissible splitting of claims. The passengers had earlier sued the airline for cancellation of the Accra–Paris leg of the same journey and settled that action. The High Court refused to strike out the later suit, holding that the incidents were distinct. On appeal, Ackaah-Boafo JSC, delivering the judgment of a three-member Court of Appeal panel, held that purchasing one ticket for a continuous journey gave rise to a single cause of action; the second suit ought to have been included in the first and its pursuit was an abuse of process. Citing authorities on abuse of process and estoppel, the court found the trial judge’s reasoning erroneous, allowed the appeal, struck out the impugned pleadings and dismissed the action.
Ackaah-Boafo, JSC.
[1] My Lords, given the facts presented in this appeal and the main issue for determination, it is appropriate to refer to the ratio in the Canadian case of Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees (C.U.P.E.), Local 79¹, in which the court stated that the doctrine of abuse of process serves to temper the strict application of cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel. This doctrine is typically invoked in situations where the requirement that the parties (or their privies) be the same is not met. Nevertheless, allowing litigation to proceed in such cases would undermine key principles such as judicial economy, consistency, finality, and the integrity of the justice system. Unlike estoppel, abuse of process is a discretionary doctrine that focuses on protecting the judicial process itself, rather than on the identity of the parties.
[2] Locally, our Supreme Court, in Eastern Alloys Co. Ltd v. Silver Star Auto Ltd. [2017–2018] 1 SCLRG 329, held in holding 1 that where a matter has already been litigated before a court of competent jurisdiction, the parties are expected to raise all arguments, claims, or defences available to them at that time. This ensures that the entire dispute is resolved comprehensively and conclusively in a single proceeding.
[3] Societe Air France, the Defendant/Appellant ("the Appellant"), has appealed against the dismissal of its application to strike out the pleadings and the dismissal of the action brought by the Plaintiffs/Respondents ("the Respondents") through their attorney, Flight Claim Services, on July 27, 2023. Before the lower court, the Appellant argued that the Respondents' action constituted an abuse of the court's process. The Respondents, however, opposed the application, contending that the earlier suit relied upon by the Appellant was distinct from the present action, which formed the subject of the application.
[4] The judge of the court below, Baayeh J, dismissed the application on the ground that the Appellant had failed to demonstrate that the suit amounted to an abuse of process. In his view, there was nothing unlawful about the institution of the action. The court further held that the issues raised by the Appellant in the application were matters best resolved after the presentation of evidence. This interlocutory appeal challenges the judge's decision to dismiss the application.
[5] The Respondents, n