DR. JOSEPH ADUMUA-BOSSMAN & ANOR, VRS GN REINSURANCE COMPANY LTD (LD/0258/2022) [2023] GHAHC 584 (21 December 2023)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE GHANA (LAND COURT SEVEN ‘7’) HELD IN ACCRA ON THE THURSDAY THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP ALEX OSEI TUTU, J. SUIT NO: LD/0258/2022 1. DR. JOSEPH ADUMUA-BOSSMAN 2. EMMANUEL ADUMUA-BOSSMAN :: PLTS/RESPS. (ALL SUING AS THE TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF KOFI ADUMUA-BOSSMAN (DEC’D) VRS GN REINSURANCE COMPANY LTD :: DEFT/APPELL. 62 KINSHASHA AVENUE, EAST LEGON – ACCRA ================================================================= R U L I N G The Defendant/Applicant is praying for an Order for Stay of proceedings pending appeal against the Ruling of the Court dated 2nd November, 2023 pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The Application was grounded on the fact that the Court dismissed their Application in limine on the basis that same is incompetent and frivolous having been filed pursuant to their Conditional Appearance. It is their case that the dismissal of their Application was erroneous since the Conditional Appearance had already crystallized, so the Court was duty bound to rule on the issue of capacity and abuse of process on its merits. It is further contended that the mistaken in limine dismissal of the Applicant’s Application without determination on its merits constitutes exceptional circumstances warranting a stay of the proceedings. RULING DELIVERED BY J. ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU IN SUIT NO. LD/0586/2022 ON 21ST DEC., 2023 AT LAND COURT ‘7’ The Applicant is already burdened with prosecuting multiple actions with respect to the subject matter land of which the 1st Plaintiff is a party. Hence, it is its view that untold hardship would be occasioned on the Applicant, who is already expending a lot of time and resources in prosecuting and defending multiple actions related to the same parcel of land. The Application was denied by the Plaintiff/Respondent that the Applicant has not demonstrated any basis why the inherent jurisdiction of the Court should be invoked to stay proceedings. He argued that there is no issue of capacity to be determined as the Plaintiff/Respondent attached certified true copies of the Order of the Honourable Court to their Affidavit in opposition. The Respondent further denied any abuse of the Court’s processes. In determining whether the Applicant has been able to adduce exceptional circumstances for the grant, the Court would first consider the two main cases cited by the Applicant to ventilate his case and say that they were inapplicable to the facts and instant case, if not misleading. According to the Applicant, the case of QUAYE VRS MARIAMU (1963) GLR 93, is to the effect that a Court must always give reasons for its decision. It is important to consider the facts of the said case and the context in which the decision was given. I understand the principle enunciated in the case to apply to final judgments and not applications of this nature. The Plaintiff in the said case had sued for a declaration of title among other reliefs. The Court in its Judgment dismissed the action without giving any reason. Being a final decision, it was obviously surprising that the Court did not explain the basis of its decision. On the contrary, summary disposals of interlocutory applications are not new under our laws and the Courts have often cautioned trial Courts to be careful in making pronouncements touching on the merits of a case that could prejudice the outcome of the suit. See CRYSTAL CITY LTD. VRS GOTTFRIED (2012) 38 MLRG 140 @ 144; NATIONAL LOTTERY RULING DELIVERED BY J. ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU IN SUIT NO. LD/0586/2022 ON 21ST DEC., 2023 AT LAND COURT ‘7’ AUTHORITY VRS AIRTEL GH. (2011) 36 GMJ 190; SERWAA & ANOR. VRS DWOMOH & 4 OTHERS (2015) 86 GMJ 95 & REPUBLIC VRS HIGH COURT, ACCRA, EX PARTE HESSE [2008–09] 1 GLR 586. Counsel for the Applicant further cited EX PARTE ARYEETEY as the authority upon which the Court relied upon to dismiss its application. It is unfortunate that the Applicant who is seeking the mercies of the Court in this application could put words in the mouth of the Court and misrepresent it to suit his personal motive. No where in the Ruling was EX PARTE ARYEETEY mentioned by the Court and I believe that might have explained the reason for the Applicant’s deliberate failure to attach a copy of the Ruling to the instant application, which would obviously have exposed his misinformation. As if that was not enough, the Applicant stretched the truth in its affidavit in support of the Motion at paragraphs 7 & 9 that the Court dismissed the application, when the records clearly show that the application was merely struck out. It may be recalled that per the proceedings on the 2nd day of November, 2023, the Applicant in his submission told the Court that the Plaintiff/Respondent had mentioned some documents in their affidavit in opposition upon which their capacity was anchored but he had not been able to access them despite having written to the Registry to furnish them with the said processes. At that juncture, it had become obvious that the Applicant had not been diligent before filing its application, because it had not even seen the said processes of the Plaintiff. Counsel for the Applicant therefore sought leave of the Court to file a Defence out of time, apart from offering costs of GH¢1,000.00 to the Plaintiffs/Respondents before the Court proceeded to strike out the application. The Applicant’s prayer for leave to file a Defence out of time rendered its application to strike out the pleadings and dismiss the Plaintiff’s suit moot. RULING DELIVERED BY J. ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU IN SUIT NO. LD/0586/2022 ON 21ST DEC., 2023 AT LAND COURT ‘7’ The Court’s description of the Application that was struck out as ‘incompetent and frivolous’ was as a result of the admission by the Applicant’s Lawyer for not verifying the documents of the Plaintiff but being in haste to mount the application. If the Applicant’s conduct of offering costs and seeking leave to file a Defence out of time did not constitute throwing in of the towel, the Court would not have struck out the Application but rather dismissed it. I am not sure that it is the law that a Court which strikes out an Application has the duty to give reasons, when the merits of the Application had not been considered. The Applicant’s legal submission that there is another matter pending between them and the first Plaintiff which enjoins the Court to grant their application is also misconceived. The law on multiplicity of suits does not demand of a party to invite the Court to dismiss the latter suit. In JESSIE APPIAGYEI VRS THOMAS APPIAGYEI, [2015] DLCA 7752, the Court of Appeal held emphatically that a Court has no power to dismiss a suit when simultaneous suits between the same parties, subject matter and issues are filed. The law only allows the Defendant to put the Plaintiff to an election for the other suit to be stayed. See the cases of NANA ADWOA EFFIA & GODFRED KWOFIE VRS NANA TAIBA II & 4 OTHERS (2010) 25 GMJ 37 @ 64 & IN RE APPLICATION BY NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY AND PEOPLES CONVENTION PARTY (APPLICANT) TEHN-ADDY VRS ELECTORAL COMMISSION AND ANOTHER (1996–97) SC GLR 216 @ [217–218]. As at the 2nd day of November, 2023 when the Court struck out the application, the Defendant had not filed its Defence, so the court was not in the position to know and satisfied itself that the matter involved the same parties, the same issues and the same subject matter. Granted the other suit involved the first Plaintiff, does it make it lis alibi pendens when there is a second Plaintiff who has not been mentioned as being a party in the other suit? While the Court takes into consideration the Applicant’s submission that the Courts should endeavour to avoid multiplicity of suits, we must be guided RULING DELIVERED BY J. ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU IN SUIT NO. LD/0586/2022 ON 21ST DEC., 2023 AT LAND COURT ‘7’ by the full import of the rules. Order 1 rule 1 (2) of THE HIGH COURT CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES, 2004 (C. I. 47) not only enjoins the Court to avoid the multiplicity of suits, but also for all issues between the parties to be finally and effectively determined. If the second Plaintiff believes he has a cause of action against the Defendant, how would issues between him and the Defendant be effectively and finally determined if the Court dismisses the instant suit as sought by the Defendant? Perhaps, if one of the two suits should be stayed or dismissed, it is the other one which does not involve the second Plaintiff for this one to proceed. In the light of the above analysis, the Court does not think that this is a case where its discretion should be exercised in favour of the Applicant, as its inherent jurisdiction has unjustifiably been invoked. Accordingly, the Application for stay of proceedings is dismissed with costs of GH¢3,000.00 against the Defendant/Applicant. (SGD.) H/L ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT PARTIES: PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS REPRESENTED BY GEORGE THOMPSON PRESENT DEFENDANT/APPLICANT ABSENT COUNSEL: RULING DELIVERED BY J. ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU IN SUIT NO. LD/0586/2022 ON 21ST DEC., 2023 AT LAND COURT ‘7’ JEDIDIAH WILLIAMS ESQ., FOR PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS PRESENT NICHOLAS LENIN ANANE AGYEI ESQ., WITH KUSI PATRICK ADU- AMANKWAH ESQ., HOLDING BRIEF FOR DR. FREDERICK BOAMAH ESQ., FOR DEFENDANT/APPLICANT PRESENT REFERENCES: CASES CITED: 1. QUAYE VRS MARIAMU (1963) GLR 93 CRYSTAL CITY LTD. VRS GOTTFRIED (2012) 38 MLRG 140 @ 2. NATIONAL LOTTERY AUTHORITY VRS AIRTEL GH. 3. 36 GMJ 190 (2011) SERWAA & ANOR. VRS DWOMOH & 4 OTHERS (2015) 86 GMJ 4. REPUBLIC VRS HIGH COURT, ACCRA, EX PARTE HESSE [2008– 5. 09] 1 GLR 586. JESSIE APPIAGYEI VRS THOMAS APPIAGYEI, [2015] DLCA 6. NANA ADWOA EFFIA & GODFRED KWOFIE VRS NANA TAIBA 7. II & 4 OTHERS (2010) 25 GMJ 37 @ 64 8. IN RE APPLICATION BY NEW PATRIOTIC PARTY AND PEOPLES CONVENTION PARTY (APPLICANT) TEHN- ADDY VRS ELECTORAL COMMISSION AND ANOTHER (1996–97) SC GLR 216 @ [217–218] 9. EX PARTE ARYEETEY RULING DELIVERED BY J. ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU IN SUIT NO. LD/0586/2022 ON 21ST DEC., 2023 AT LAND COURT ‘7’ ENACTMENT: THE HIGH COURT CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES, 2004 (C. I. 1. 47) RULING DELIVERED BY J. ALEXANDER OSEI TUTU IN SUIT NO. LD/0586/2022 ON 21ST DEC., 2023 AT LAND COURT ‘7’ 7