Ghana Judgment

District Court

KORBOE VRS KUDJOE (A1/01/2022) [2023] GHADC 1051 (17 November 2023)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The District Court must stay its proceedings because the subject matter is part of a larger dispute pending before the High Court, which has superior jurisdiction. Proceeding would result in multiplicity of proceedings and potential conflicting decisions.

Court disposition

motion granted; proceedings stayed

Orders

  • Hearing in the District Court is put on hold pending the outcome of the High Court case at Koforidua

02

Material facts

Parties

Maku Korboe

Plaintiff/respondent

Mr Kudjoe

Defendant/applicant Counsel: Justice Kinaku Sallah Esq

Amounts and remedies

  • Damages Claimed: GHS 5,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil / Ruling on Motion to Strike Out

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The land in dispute is subject to a pending High Court suit involving the same parties and subject matter, making the current suit an abuse of process. The High Court case should take precedence, and the District Court should not proceed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
Respondent
The reliefs in the District Court suit are different from those in the High Court. The High Court suit has progressed, and the defendant's motion is a delay tactic.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Order 1 rule 2(d) of the District Court Rules, 2009 (CI. 59)

    When the same subject matter is before both a lower and a superior court, the lower court must stay proceedings to await the outcome of the superior court to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The District Court must stay its proceedings because the subject matter is part of a larger dispute pending before the High Court, which has superior jurisdiction. Proceeding would result in multiplicity of proceedings and potential conflicting decisions.

Court disposition

motion granted; proceedings stayed

  • Hearing in the District Court is put on hold pending the outcome of the High Court case at Koforidua

Source and reliance status

District Court

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

District Court

Judgment

[2023] GHADC 1051

IN THE DISTRICT COURT HELD AT SOMANYA ON FRIDAY THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMEBR, 2023 BEFORE HIS WORSHIP MICHAEL DEREK OCLOO MAKU KORBOE PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT SUIT NO. A1/01/2022 MR KUDJOE DEFENDANT/ APPLICANT VRS PARTIES – PRESENT JUSTICE KINAKU SALLAH ESQ FOR DEFENDANT/ APPLICANT - PRESENT

RULING ON MOTION ON NOTICE TO STRIKE OUT WRIT OF SUMMONS AND

STATEMENTS OF CLAIM FOR ABUSE OF COURT OR JUDICIAL PROCESS The Plaintiff commenced the instant action against the Defendant for the following reliefs; 1. An Order of the Court to restrain the Defendant from trespassing on the Plaintiff’s property situate at Trom, Somanya.

2. Damages of GHȼ 5,000.00 for destroying the Plaintiff’s security barrier.

3. Costs of litigation. Counsel for and on behalf of the Defendant /Applicant filed a motion on notice to strike out the Write of Summons and statement of Claim for abuse of the Court process or judicial process on the following grounds: 1. That the land the subject matter of this suit is the property of Kofi Batsa.

2. That Mrs. VeronicaAkita (an administrator of the estate of Kofi Batsa) in a case instituted against the grantors of the Plaintiff’s (Suit No. A1/04/2010) on portion of the land of Kofi Batsa successfully obtained Judgment.

3. That currently there is a pending suit no. C12/112/2016 before the High Court, Koforidua against both the grantors of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff (who is the 4th Defendant) by Mrs. Veronica Akita touching on the Ownership of a large tract of land which the land the Plaintiff is claiming forms part of A copy each of the Writ of Summons and statement of claim counterclaim filed by the Plaintiff (who is the 4th Defendant) were attached and marked as Exhibit A and B.

4. That in view of the pending suit no. C12/112/2016 of the High Court, Koforidua and the counterclaim by the Plaintiff, filing of the instant suit constitutes abuse of the Court process. The Plaintiff / Respondent stated the following in her affidavit in opposition: 1. That the suit pending at the High Court, Koforidua titled Suit No. C12/117/2016, Veronica Akita V KwesitsuAmlalo& 7 others carries different reliefs from the instant suit. A copy of the Writ of Summons was attached and marked as Exhibit Mk 1.

2. The suit has travelled far where Locus inspection has been conducted in the presence of both parties in accordance with law.

3. That the Defendant/Applicant’s motion is clearly an Act of Commission to delay the Court process and was also presented at a time when Counsel for the Defendant has cross-examined the Plaintiff/Respondent who is at the concluding stage of Cross-examination of the Defendant. The Plaintiff/Respondent did not challenge the fact that Suit No. C12/117/2016 is pending at the High Court, Koforidua. She maintained that the reliefs sought in the instant case is different from the one at the High Court but failed to recognize the fact that she is laying Claim to the land in issue at the District Court for which reason she is praying the Court for an Order to restrain the Defendant from trespassing on same. It is trite that when the same Subject Matter is being heard simultaneously at the lower and superior courts, the District Court would put its hearing on hold to await the outcome of the Superior Court. In the instant case, it has been established that the subject matter in the district Court forms part of a larger subject matter at the High Court, Koforidua. The two Courts are in different levels of jurisdiction and by extension the High Court is superior to the District Court. Furthermore, the lower Court has to put its hearing of the matter on hold to await the determination of the matter by the High Court to avoid multiplicity of proceedings as provided in Order 1r 2(d) of the District Court Rules, 2009 (CI. 59). In these circumstances, I rely on the provisions in the statute law cited above and grant the motion in terms of awaiting the outcome of the High Court Case, Koforidua. (SDG) ………………………………..

MICAHEL DEREK OCLOO

DISTRICT MAGISTRATE 17TH NOVEMBER, 2023

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Order 1 rule 2(d) of the District Court Rules, 2009 (CI. 59)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.