Adam Vrs Nuamah [2020] GHASC 29 (5 February 2020)

Adam Vrs Nuamah [2020] GHASC 29 (5 February 2020)

The Supreme Court held that the defendant's application to strike out the plaintiff's claim was procedurally flawed because it failed to admit the truth of the plaintiff's averments as required under Order 11 rule 18(1)(a) of CI 47, improperly relied on affidavit evidence, and sought to traverse the facts while simultaneously seeking summary dismissal. The trial judge was correct to refuse summary dismissal, as the claim disclosed triable issues, especially regarding fraud, which required a full trial. The Court of Appeal erred in overturning the trial judge's decision.

Citation
Adam Vrs Nuamah [2020] GHASC 29 (5 February 2020)
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/appellant: Ahmed Muddy Adam; Defendant/appellant/respondent: Frank Nuamah
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
5 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate (supreme Court)
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Summary Disposal of Actions, Striking Out Pleadings, Reasonable Cause of Action, Abuse of Process, Fraud Allegations, Right to Be Heard
Source Language
eng
Civil Procedure Summary Disposal of Actions Striking Out Pleadings Reasonable Cause of Action Abuse of Process Fraud Allegations Right to Be Heard

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmed Muddy Adam

Plaintiff/respondent/appellant

Frank Nuamah

Defendant/appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate (supreme Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in reversing the trial court's refusal to summarily dismiss the action for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the defendant's application to strike out the plaintiff's claim was procedurally flawed because it failed to admit the truth of the plaintiff's averments as required under Order 11 rule 18(1)(a) of CI 47, improperly relied on affidavit evidence, and sought to traverse the facts while simultaneously seeking summary dismissal. The trial judge was correct to refuse summary dismissal, as the claim disclosed triable issues, especially regarding fraud, which required a full trial. The Court of Appeal erred in overturning the trial judge's decision.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Decision of the Court of Appeal set aside.
  • Decision of the trial judge dismissing the application to strike out and dismiss the action restored.