KLUDJESON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VRS THE REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT, ACCRA & 3 ORS. (GJ/396/2017) [2023] GHAHC 580 (22 December 2023)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE GHANA (GENERAL JURISDICTION COURT 4) HELD IN ACCRA ON FRIDAY THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU, (MRS.) J. KLUDJESON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED : PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT SUIT NO: GJ/396/2017 VRS 1. THE REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT – ACCRA : 1ST DEFENDANT 2. 3. JUSTICE MANTEY AKITA : 2ND DEFENDANT/APPLICANT MAFTI MEGA AUCTION : 3RD DEFENDANT 4. 2020 GROUP : 4TH DEFENDANT ======================================================= ======================================================= R U L I N G On the 21st of March 2017 the plaintiff issued a Writ of Summons against the Defendants claiming the following reliefs: “a. An order setting aside the auction sale of plaintiff’s building situates at Number 48 Aharabata Street Pig farm carried out on the 15th of November 2016 b. A declaration that the said auction of plaintiff’s building situate at Number 48 Aharabata Street Pig Farm was conducted by fraud c. d. Recovery of possession. Damages for trespass. e. Damages for destruction of property f. Costs” RULING DELIVERED BY HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU (MRS.) ON 22/12/2023 @ GJ4 Put briefly, the Plaintiff’s case is that on the 13th of December 2002 the High Court (Fast Track Division) entered Judgment against it in Suit No FTC11/2002 2020 GROUP LIMITED VRS KLUDGESON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED. The said plaintiff in Suit No. FTC11/2002 commenced execution of the judgement and proceeded to attach its building the subject matter of this suit i.e. No. 48 Aharabata Street Pig Farm. Believing that the Judgment was obtained by fraud it filed a Writ to set aside the Judgment in another suit i.e. Suit No. BMISC 26/2013 KLUDGESON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VRS 2020 GROUP LIMITED. The High Court struck out its Writ as being an abuse of the Court process and being dissatisfied it appealed against the decision. Pursuant to the appeal it applied to the High Court for an order of Injunction restraining the Plaintiff from proceeding with the execution of the Judgment in No. Suit No. FTC11/2002 pending the determination of its appeal against the decision striking out its writ in Suit No. BMISC 26/2013. At the hearing of the Application for Injunction Counsel for 2020 Group Limited raised a preliminary objection challenging the validity of the appeal which said objection was overruled and Counsel invited to move the application at a later date. 2020 Group Limited appealed against the decision overruling its Counsel’s objection and applied to the Court of Appeal for an order staying proceedings in Suit No. BMISC 26/2013. As a result of the application which was pending as well the order of the Court of Appeal staying proceedings 2020 could not proceed with execution of the Judgment in Suit No. FTC11/2002. According to the Plaintiff it was awaiting the determination of the Appeal and was exploring the possibility of resolving the issue with 2020 Group Limited when to its dismay it was informed that its building and registered office No. 48 Aharabata Street Pig Farm had been sold by an auction pursuant to 2020 Group Limited proceeding with the execution. It is the contention of the Plaintiff that upon checks at the High Court it realized that the auction was conducted by the 3rd Defendant and that the 2nd Defendant was the successful bidder at the purported auction. It goes on to say that the whole auction was conducted by fraud and organized to overreach it. It says that even though the 2nd Defendant does not have the requisite documents authenticating the purported RULING DELIVERED BY HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU (MRS.) ON 22/12/2023 @ GJ4 purchase he has resorted to harassing it and its workers. It accuses the 2nd Defendant of causing damage to its building and property. After being served with the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim, the 2nd Defendant not only entered appearance but caused an application to be filed under Order 11 Rule 18 1(a), (b), & (d) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C. I 47) praying for an order striking out the Plaintiff’s Pleadings and under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court. The Plaintiff/Respondent will, for ease of reference, be described hereafter simply as the Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant/Applicant as the 2nd Defendant. The affidavit in support of the application ran into 16 paragraphs; but I would refer to 11 of them, which are most relevant to this decision. The material portions of the affidavit are the depositions contained in paragraphs 5, 6, 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 and 16 which read as follows: “5. That the entirety of the Plaintiff’s claims before this Court is borne out of calculated mischief and a well-conceived intention to undermine the integrity of the administration of justice. 6. That the Plaintiff’s claim is a collateral attack on orders and Judgments of the Superior Court of Judicature litigation having arisen in two legal suits in the High Court in which the Plaintiff’s claim and defence were dismissed in its entirety. Annexed and marked as Exhibits “A” and “B” are the Judgments of the High Court in these matters. 7. That the Plaintiff conducted itself in such a miserable manner that the Courts barred it from filing any processes without leave of the Court. Annexed and marked as exhibits “C”, “D”, “E”, “F”, “G”, “H”, “J” and “K” are relevant processes in this regard. RULING DELIVERED BY HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU (MRS.) ON 22/12/2023 @ GJ4 8. That a few weeks ago the Plaintiff appeared before General jurisdiction (High Court 2) Coram: His Lordship Justice Mensah to set aside the auction sale which had taken place in respect of the property subject matter of dispute. Annexed and marked as exhibit “L” is a copy of its application seeking to set aside the auction sale. 9. That the application was successfully resisted by the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor (it has filed an application to join this suit as the 4th Defendant) in the said suit. Annexed and marked as Exhibit M is a copy of the ruling of the Court. 10. That it is instructive to note that the Plaintiff herein but Defendant/Judgment debtor therein sought to set aside the auction sale without having sought and obtained the requisite leave and was severely reprimanded by way of costs. The costs remain unpaid. 11. That it is instructive to note that ruling of the Court (General Jurisdiction 2) has not been set aside and it is thus binding on all parties. 12. That the Plaintiff cannot avoid the “leave requirements” by filing fresh suits on every occasion when the substantive court vested with jurisdiction rules against it and that this is a gross abuse of the process. 13. That it is abundantly clear that the plaintiff is engaged in forum shopping and that this court must put the brakes on this decadent conduct. 14. That this Court has no jurisdiction to hear this case for all the arguments being made in the Plaintiffs claim are rehashed for same were made before the Judge in General Jurisdiction 2 or if not amounts to litigating in piecemeal manner which in itself is an abuse of the process. RULING DELIVERED BY HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU (MRS.) ON 22/12/2023 @ GJ4 16. That I am advised and verily believe same to be true that the circumstances require and indeed compel a dismissal of the case with punitive costs against Plaintiff and Counsel..” The Plaintiff filed an affidavit in opposition to the application. The salient points in the Plaintiff’s affidavit in opposition are captured in paragraphs 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 and 13. These paragraphs state: “4. We have been served with 2nd defendant’s Application to strike out Plaintiff’s pleadings 5. We are vehemently opposed to the said notice of motion 6. The instant notice of motion filed by the applicant has been brought in bad faith 7. On the 21st day of March 2017 Plaintiff instituted the suit herein 8. 1st and 3rd Defendants have not yet entered appearance 9. 2nd Defendant’s application is misconceived as the present suit has nothing to do with the dispute between the proposed 4th Defendant and the Plaintiff but rather the fraudulent manner in which the Defendants purported to sell and buy the Plaintiff’s building. 10. I am informed by counsel and that I verily believe same to be true that the interests of Justice would be best served if this application is refused and the 2nd Defendant ordered to file his statement of Defence. 11. That it cannot be denied that there is a pending application for injunction retraining the proposed 4th Defendant and by extension 1st and 3rd Defendants from proceeding with the execution of the Judgment obtained by the proposed 4th Defendant against the Plaintiff as per Exhibit EN. RULING DELIVERED BY HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU (MRS.) ON 22/12/2023 @ GJ4 12. That the reason why the said application is still pending is that the proposed 4th Defendant obtained an order from the Court of Appeal staying all proceedings in suit no BMISC 26/2013 KLUDGESON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VRS 2020 GROUP LIMITED AS PER EXHIBIT EN 1. 13. I am informed by counsel and verily believe same to be true that until the said order of the Court of Appeal is vacated and the application for injunction is determined any execution of the Judgment against the Plaintiff is unlawful”. To prop up the allegations and counter-allegations the parties filed supplementary affidavits. The parties also supported the matters deposed to in their affidavits with various exhibits. Counsel on both sides advanced arguments in support of the respective positions as disclosed in the affidavits. Counsel’s submissions for the sake of brevity would be summed up. Arguing in support of the application, Learned Counsel for the 2nd Defendant rested his submissions on the following points: 1. The instant suit initiated by the Plaintiff is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of court process calculated to prevent the 2nd Defendant from enjoying the property which he legitimately acquired through a lawful auction sale which has not been set aside by the Court. The Plaintiff is using the judicial system to cause hardship to the 2nd Defendant. The 2nd Defendant has been saddled with paying for security services since 16th January 2017 due to the instant frivolous, vexatious and scandalous suit instituted by the Plaintiff. 2. The Plaintiff has been lethargic, tardy and is not desirous of prosecuting the instant suit. Since the instant suit was filed on 21st March 2017 it has failed or neglected to serve Court processes on the 3rd Defendant, the auctioneer who conducted the auction and is the principal party in this suit. The results of a search the 2nd RULING DELIVERED BY HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU (MRS.) ON 22/12/2023 @ GJ4 Defendant conducted on 28th June 2021 confirms that the 3rd Defendant has not been served with the instant Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim and that it does not exist as a legal entity under the laws of the Republic of Ghana. 3. The Plaintiff before instituting this suit against the 2nd Defendant had filed other suits/applications which were either struck out or dismissed with orders that it should seek leave before taking any step in relation to the subject matter of this dispute. This Court differently constituted has by its order prohibited the Plaintiff from instituting this action without leave. Arguing to the contrary Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted as follows: 1. The application is prejudicial and brought in utter bad faith. The 2nd Defendant has failed to convince the Court that it should exercise its powers to strike out the Plaintiff’s pleadings. The 2nd Defendant is seeking to mislead the Court by misrepresenting the facts before the court. The current suit was necessitated by the auction sale of the subject matter of this suit where the said property was purportedly sold to the 2nd Defendant. In its pleadings the plaintiff has alleged that the said sale was carried out fraudulently and has given particulars of the alleged fraud. Accordingly it must be given the opportunity to prove its case. 2. At the heart of the Plaintiff’s case is the fact that there was an injunction application pending before the High Court as well as an order of the Court of Appeal staying proceedings. The Judgment Creditor could not therefore proceed with the execution in suit no FTC 11/2002 and the Registrar could not have duly conducted the said sale. To the amazement of the Plaintiff and without compliance with all the necessary due processes it was informed that the property has been sold by an auction pursuant to the Judgment creditor disregarding the Court’s order and proceeding with the execution. 3. The 2nd Defendant has not presented any evidence to establish that the issues before the Court have already been determined between the same parties. The orders made RULING DELIVERED BY HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU (MRS.) ON 22/12/2023 @ GJ4 by the other Courts where neither the 2nd Defendant or the 1st Defendant were parties can form the basis for the instant application. 4. The averments relating to tardiness cannot form the basis for striking out the pleadings. The 2nd Defendant is only seeking to re-argue the same points as argued in its opposition to the re-listing of the suit. 5. The 3rd Defendant at all material times to the suit was represented by Kwame Boafo Akuffo Esq. This is evident by a notice of withdrawal which was filed by Counsel on 24th February 2020. In the said process counsel clearly indicated to the Court that he was withdrawing its services for and on behalf of 2nd and 3rd Defendants. The 3rd Defendant having been represented by Counsel the onus was on the 2nd Defendant to bring an application for substitution. 6. The present suit is well founded and grounded in law and cannot be described as scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the Court process. To grant the application will cause a grave miscarriage of justice. At this juncture I would like to advert to some important issues which were raised by the Learned Counsel for 2nd Defendant in his written submissions. In his submissions Learned Counsel raised the issue regarding non-service of the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim on the 3rd Defendant. He complained that the Plaintiff is using this to hold the 2nd Defendant to ransom. Going through the record there is no proof that the 3rd Defendant has been served with the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim. I am of the opinion however that the omission to serve the 3rd Defendant with the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim is not fatal to the present application. It should not therefore be used to preclude the Parties from being heard on its merits. RULING DELIVERED BY HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU (MRS.) ON 22/12/2023 @ GJ4 It was also submitted by learned counsel for the 2nd defendant that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear this case for all the arguments being made in the Plaintiffs claim are rehashed for same were made before the High Court General Jurisdiction 2 presided over by Justice Mensah. The point was made that the Court differently constituted had by its order prohibited the Plaintiff from instituting this action without leave. It was therefore submitted that leave not having been granted, the present action is not properly before the Court. I do not find myself able to accept the submissions of learned Counsel for the 2nd defendant. The basis of the Plaintiff’s action is fraud. The issue of fraud has never been considered by the court. The Plaintiff has decided to have the issue determined by this action. I am of the opinion that it is entitled to do so for as was said in the case of DZOTEPE V HARHOMENE III [1987-88] 2 GLR 681 “fraud, whenever and wherever found, would vitiate all proceedings even the most solemn proceedings of a Court of Justice.” Unless the order of the court expressly prohibited the commencement of a fresh action it would be no bar to the Plaintiff bringing a fresh action. There is no record that the Plaintiff has been prohibited from instituting an action without leave of the Court. If there had been such a record the 2nd Defendant would be entitled to rely on it. The order of the Court in Suit No: FTC11/2002 prohibited the Plaintiff “from filing any further application except with leave of the Court”. It is my considered opinion that the Plaintiff is thus not estopped from suing, as it has done. Having disposed of these preliminary legal points I now direct my attention to the issue of whether the Court should dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Claim on the pleadings or whether it is necessary that the case should be heard on its merits. I see myself faced with the following legal points for determination: 1. Whether the Plaintiffs’ pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action. RULING DELIVERED BY HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU (MRS.) ON 22/12/2023 @ GJ4 2. Whether the current action is an abuse of the Court process, frivolous or vexatious. It is well established that it is only in plain and obvious cases that recourse should be had to the summary process under Order 11 rule18 of the C. I 47. Speaking about the exercise of the Court’s power under the rule in GBENARTEY & GLIE V NETAS PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS & OTHERS [2015-2016] 1 SCGLR 605 Anin Yeboah JSC @ Page 619 said as follows; “It therefore follows that the procedure of terminating proceedings by summary process should be applied only in cases where the action is clearly unsustainable, plain and obvious that it is beyond doubt that the case is unarguably frivolous and vexatious; and even legitimate amendments could not cure the defect.” The 2nd Defendant anchored his Application on two legs. First under Order 11 rule 18 1(a) of C. I. 47 and secondly under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The laws governing the practice and procedure under the Rules and that dealing with the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court are well settled. They are considered in the cases of GHANA MUSLIMS REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL VRS SALIFU [1975] 2 G. L. R. 246 and HARLLEY VRS EJURA FARMS (GHANA) LTD. [1977] 2 G. L. R. 179. Where the pleadings are attacked as disclosing no reasonable cause of action it is not permissible to try the action on affidavits. One must look at the pleadings only and nothing else: BANK OF WEST AFRICA LTD VRS HOLDBROOK [1966] G. L. R. 164. Under the second leg of the application, which covers the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court, affidavits and extrinsic evidence are however permitted to be taken into account. Order 11, r 18 of C1 47 states: (1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order any pleading or anything in any pleading to be struck out on the grounds (a) It discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence; or (b) It is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious RULING DELIVERED BY HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU (MRS.) ON 22/12/2023 @ GJ4 (c) It may prejudice, embarrass, or delay the fair trial of the action; or (d) It is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court, And may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or Judgment to be entered accordingly..” The purpose of the Order 11 rule 18 (1) (a) of C. I. 47 is to prevent claims which on the face of the pleadings disclose no cause of action. In GHANA MUSLIMS REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL VRS SALIFU supra at page 261 Azu Crabbe C. J. stated thus: “It is clearly a matter in the judicial discretion of the judge, and a pleading will only be struck out under the rule in a plain and obvious case, where it is apparent that even if the facts are proved, the Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief he seeks”. In LETANG VRS COOPER [1965] 1 Q. B. 232, Diplock L. J. defined cause of action at pp. 242-243 as “simply a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person”. And in HARRIET MORRISON & ANOR VRS REGISTERED TRUSTEES VICTORY BIBLE CHURCH (2012) 49 GMJ 80 the Court of Appeal speaking through Ayebi J. A at page 102 stated thus: “A cause of action connotes the existence of a state of facts which entitles a party to maintain an action in a Court of law. Therefore an action which clearly has no chance of success will naturally be void of a reasonable cause of action- Drummond Jackson vrs British” Order 11 Rule 18 1(a) of C. I. 47 in no uncertain terms, dictates that only the pleadings must be referred to and relied upon in moving an Application brought pursuant to it. The rule being that what is defective must appear on the face of the pleadings sought to be struck out. The authorities indicate that with such Applications the Court must assume RULING DELIVERED BY HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU (MRS.) ON 22/12/2023 @ GJ4 that the offending pleadings are true. See the case of JONAH VRS KULENDI & KULENDI [2013–2014] SCGLR 272. Considering the Application under the first leg, i.e. Order 11, Rule 18 (1) (a) of C. I. 47 the Court has to therefore look at the pleadings, which in this case is the Statement of Claim. Looking at the Statement of Claim the main thrust of the Plaintiff’s case is that the auction sale was conducted by fraud and organized to overreach it. The particulars of fraud have been given in accordance with Order 11 rule 12(1) (a) of C. I 47. They are as follows: “PARTICULARS OF FRAUD A. Mafti Mega Auctions was not the assigned auctioneer the assigned auctioneer being Vans Mart. B. That the purported auction was not sanctioned by the registrar of the High Court. C. The Reserved Price for the auction was outdated and did not reflect the current value of the plaintiff’s building D. That the leave of the High Court and/or the Court of Appeal was not sought before the parties purported with execution.” The authorities indicate that an allegation of fraud goes to the root of every transaction. I am mindful of a long line of authorities which have decided that where allegations of fraud emerge for determination at the trial the procedure of terminating proceedings by summary process is unavailable. The case of MORRISON & ANOTHER V VICTORY BIBLE CHURCH & OTHERS [2015-2016] 2 SCGLR 1628 is authority on the point that where serious allegations of fraud would emerge for determination at the trial the procedure of terminating proceedings by summary process is unavailable. Similar views were expressed in the case of ADAM V NUAMAH [2017-2020] SCGLR 36. In that case the Supreme Court held that since the Defendant’s application raised issues concerning the allegation of fraud contained in the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim the proper RULING DELIVERED BY HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU (MRS.) ON 22/12/2023 @ GJ4 procedure was for the matter to go to full-scale trial. A single thread therefore runs through these cases; and that is that where serious allegations of fraud emerge for determination at the trial the procedure of terminating proceedings by summary process is unavailable. But is the issue raised in this case really one of fraud? Fraud,’ is defined in BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 11th EDITION BY BRYAN A. GARNER @ PAGE 802 as “ A knowing misrepresentation or knowing concealment of a material fact made to induce another to act to his detriment”. Fraud therefore evokes dishonesty. Absence of an honest belief is thus essential to constitute fraud. Taking the allegations set out in the Statement of Claim as the "particulars of fraud" on which the Plaintiff relies I am of the view that they do not constitute fraud. As stated in the case of OSEI–ANSONG & PASSION INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL V GHANA AIRPORTS CO LTD [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 25 @ 34 “Fraud” is not fraud merely because it has been so stated in a Writ of Summons to excite the feelings of the Court.” In that case the Supreme Court held that the pleadings did not disclose any cause of action based on fraud. Consequently it was held that the plaintiff’s writ was an abuse of the court process. Assuming that all the allegations in the Statement of Claim are true, they nevertheless do not disclose a cause of action. I therefore hold that the pleadings as they stand do not disclose a reasonable cause of action and I would dismiss the plaintiff’s action. This leads me to the second issue i.e. whether the Plaintiff’s action is an abuse of the Court process, frivolous or vexatious. Unlike the power given under Order 11 rule 1(a) of C. I 47, the power which the court has under its inherent jurisdiction may be exercised by going into all the facts deposed to in the affidavits. The practice under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court is well established. The court has very wide powers under its inherent jurisdiction to dismiss an action which is obviously frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of the process of the court. In TIAH VRS JOHNSON AND OTHERS [1964] GLR 661 Djabanor J stated: RULING DELIVERED BY HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU (MRS.) ON 22/12/2023 @ GJ4 “The Inherent Jurisdiction is not confined to cases where the abuse is manifest from the pleadings, but may be exercised where the facts are proved by affidavit which show an abuse of the process of the Court” “Abuse of process” according to BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 11th EDITION BY BRYAN A. GARNER @ PAGE 13 is “the improper and tortious use of a legitimately issued court process to obtain a result that is either unlawful or beyond the process’s scope”. The term ‘abuse of the process’ in BARRONS DICTIONARY OF LEGAL TERMS (4TH ED) BY STEPHEN H. GIFIS @ PAGE 3 is also defined as the “improper use of legal process.” An action is vexatious in the sense that it was annoying, harassing or distressing for its triviality. By saying this I am merely resonating the view expressed by the court in the case of GHANA BAR ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER VRS WARD BREW [1993–94] 2 GLR 509. The Plaintiff’s complaints, in my opinion relate to irregularities in the conduct of the auction sale which could have enabled it to set it aside in terms of Order 45, rule 10 (1) of C. I 47 if it had applied to the court for that purpose at any time within 21 days from the date of the auction sale. Therefore if there was any irregularity about the conduct of the auction sale, this ought to have been raised when the auction sale took place. It cannot therefore be raised in this action. It is my considered opinion that the instant action is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. It is also frivolous and vexatious. The Court has an Inherent Jurisdiction to stop any action which it considers to be an abuse of its process, frivolous or vexatious or which is clearly not maintainable in law. See the case of BADU V ABABIO [1967 GLR 1]. I am unable to find that the allegations such as they appear in the plaintiff’s pleadings disclose any cause of action. This is a proper case for the Court to summarily prevent its machinery from being used as a means of vexation in the process of litigation. The application to strike out the Plaintiff’s pleadings is granted as prayed. I award costs of GHS 30,000,000 against the Plaintiff in favour of the 2nd Defendant. RULING DELIVERED BY HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU (MRS.) ON 22/12/2023 @ GJ4 (SGD.) H/L OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU (MRS.) JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT PARTIES: PLAINTIFF ABSENT 2ND DEFENDANT PRESENT REST OF DEFENDANTS ABSENT COUNSEL: DE-MEDEIROS JULIO PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT ABSENT LIMANN DEFENDANT/APPLICANT PRESENT A. MOHAMMED ESQ., FOR ESQ., FOR 2ND REFERENCES CASES 1. 2. BADU V ABABIO [1967 GLR 1]. TIAH VRS JOHNSON AND OTHERS [1964] GLR 661 OSEI-ANSONG & PASSION INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL V GHANA 3. AIRPORTS CO LTD [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 25 4. ADAM V NUAMAH [2017-2020] SCGLR 36. MORRISON & ANOTHER V VICTORY BIBLE CHURCH & 5. [2015-2016] 2 SCGLR 1628 OTHERS 6. JONAH VRS KULENDI & KULENDI [2013–2014] SCGLR 272. RULING DELIVERED BY HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU (MRS.) ON 22/12/2023 @ GJ4 7. LETANG VRS COOPER [1965] 1 Q. B. 232, GHANA MUSLIMS REPRESENTATIVE COUNCIL VRS SALIFU 8. G. L. R. 246 [1975] 2 GBENARTEY & GLIE V NETAS PROPERTIES & 9. OTHERS [2015-2016] 1 SCGLR 605 INVESTMENTS & 10. HARLLEY VRS EJURA FARMS (GHANA) LTD. [1977] 2 G. L. R. 179. 11. BANK OF WEST AFRICA LTD VRS HOLDBROOK [1966] G. L. R. 164. 12. GHANA BAR ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER VRS WARD BREW [1993–94] 2 GLR 509. 13. HARRIET MORRISON & ANOTHER VRS REGISTERED TRUSTEES VICTORY BIBLE CHURCH (2012) 49 GMJ 80 BOOKS 1. BARRONS DICTIONARY OF LEGAL TERMS (4TH ED) BY STEPHEN H. GIFIS 2. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 11TH EDITION BY BRYAN A. GARNER RULING DELIVERED BY HER LADYSHIP OLIVIA OBENG OWUSU (MRS.) ON 22/12/2023 @ GJ4 16