STELLA MAUREEN SAFOA MQADI VS YUNUS BASHIRUDEEN KORAY & ANOR
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU (J.)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2024
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved the Defendants’ application to strike out the Plaintiff's suit for lack of capacity and being frivolous. The Plaintiff opposed, arguing the grounds were defenses to be submitted in a Statement of Defence. The court noted the Plaintiff did not provide adequate capacity evidence, making the suit procedurally defective and struck out the writ while examining applicable case law and rules.
In this application, the Defendants are seeking an Order to strike out the pleadings and to dismiss the suit pursuant to Order 11 Rule 18(1) of C. I. 47 and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.
The Motion was grounded principally on the Plaintiff’s Lack of Capacity to donate a Power of Attorney to a donee to initiate the action and the fact that the action is frivolous and vexatious.
The Application was opposed by the Plaintiff.
For ease of reference, I will reproduce some relevant paragraphs of the affidavit in opposition deposed to by the Plaintiff’s Attorney, Andrew Kwame Anokye here for the full effect. “4. That I am advised by Counsel, and verily believe same to be true that per the motion paper, the reliefs being sought by the Applicants are not fit and proper for orders to be made under Order 11 Rule 18(1). The capacity of a party is proved by evidence.
The Applicants, however, have not filed any pleadings raising a challenge to the Respondent’s capacity.
5. That I am advised by Counsel, and verily believe same to be true that grounds 2 and 3 contained in the motion paper are part of a defense the Applicants are putting up in answer to allegations contained in the Statement of Claim.
These ought to be in their Statement of Defence.
6. That I am advised by Counsel, and believe same to be true that paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 are all evidence that do not relate to or support any of the grounds stated under Order 11 Rule 18(1). 7. That I am advised and believe same to be true that paragraphs 34, 36, and 37 are all argumentative which are not fit and proper for Applications such as this.
Affidavits are meant to depose to facts that support the reliefs being sought.
8. That I am advised by Counsel, and believe same to be true that the Applicants have failed to make reference to any offensive paragraphs or facts contained in the Statement of Claim which could be described as frivolous or as an embarrassment or as an abuse of the Court process.
9. Consequently, the Application ought to fail because it does not meet any of the threshold set under the Rules …” After carefully considering the parties’ respective affidavits and their submissions thereon, I have decided to examine the underneath issues.
Plaintiff’s Action being Frivolous and Vexatious On the Motion Paper, the Defendant attacked the Plaintiff’s action as being frivolous and vexatious on two grou