W.O. 1. (RTD) KINGSLEY OWUSU VS KOFI KWABIA AGYEKUM & ORS
February 19, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE NICHOLAS M.C. ABODAKPI J.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Tort Law
February 19, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
On 19 November 2018, counsel for the 1st and 3rd Defendants sought to strike out and dismiss the Plaintiff’s suit for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action under Order 11 Rule 1(8)(a) of C.I. 47/04. The Plaintiff, a retired ex-soldier in Accra, claimed trespass, eviction, repairs, damages, and costs concerning House No. 17, Nii Kwao Street, Haatso, Accra. His pleadings admitted he had sold and conveyed the property to purchasers Jerzy Pawlawski and Helena Olsson, who registered title (GA 32659 Vol. 71 Folio 410). The Defendants include his step-children and a son-in-law; their occupation related to the Plaintiff’s estranged wife, Hanna Owusu. The court held the Plaintiff neither claimed title nor sued on behalf of the registered owners, rendering him a stranger to the land, unable to seek eviction or trespass. Applying the rule’s strike-out power (and that no evidence is admissible), the court dismissed the suit, found amendment futile, and awarded GH¢2,000 costs.
The lawyer for 1st and 3rd Defendants, has filed this application under consideration on 19/11/2018. It is for an order striking out the pleadings or the statement of claim and for a further order dismissing the Plaintiff’s, suit against the Defendant’s for not disclosing reasonable cause of action.
The relevant rule of Court under which this application could be made is ORDER 11 Rule 1(8) (a). The Rule provides: “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order any pleading or anything in any pleading to be struck out on the grounds that; (a) It discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence. ”The section continues as follows: “and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly. ”Sub-Rule 2 is relevant, and it is such that it must be read together with Rule 18(1) (a). It reads: “No evidence whatsoever shall be admissible on an application under Sub-Rule 1(a). ”. 2 I have perused the motion paper and it is compliant, with the rules as stated supra.
The above rules of procedure cited do not require an interpretation, to get the message therein.
My next consideration is to examine the writ of summons and the pleadings filed by Plaintiff.
And by that determine whether, it discloses a reasonable cause of action.
I refer to the cases: THE REPUBLIC VS HIGH COURT, ACCRA, EX PARTE: ARYEETEY [2003/4] SCGLR.
The writ is indorsed with the following claims: “(a) A declaration that Defendants have trespassed onto the property in dispute.
b) An order evicting Defendants from House No. 17, Nii Kwao Street Haatso, Accra.
c) An order directed at the Defendants to paint both the interior and exterior parts of the house and to repair any damages that have resulted from their unlawful occupation of the house.
d) Damages for trespass, and(e) Cost”. 3 The statement of claim field on 22/06/2017 with the writ is to the effect that, 1st and 3rd Defendants are Plaintiff’s step-children, and are children of Hanna Owusu, his enstranged wife.
And that 2nd Defendant is married to 3rd Defendant, his step-daughter.
Secondly, the averments are to the effect that, the house, subject matter of the action, has been sold by Plaintiff to one Jerzy Pawlawski and Helena Olsson and conveyed to them, by Plaintiff.
Thirdly, Plaintiff alleged that his enstranged wife has refused to vacate the house and by that he is unable to grant vacant possession to the purchasers.
He continued that his enstranged wife has claimed she is a joint over of