Anku Vrs Vulley And 2 Others (E1/17/2020) [2024] GHAHC 304 (24 May 2024)

Anku Vrs Vulley And 2 Others (E1/17/2020) [2024] GHAHC 304 (24 May 2024)

The applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that the plaintiff/respondent resides or works outside Ghana, or that the addresses provided were false or intended to deceive. No credible or admissible evidence was produced to support the allegations. Therefore, the grounds for ordering security for costs were not satisfied.

Citation
Anku Vrs Vulley And 2 Others (E1/17/2020) [2024] GHAHC 304 (24 May 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Evelyn Dzigbordi Anku; Defendant: Togbe Vulley; Defendant: Charles Prah; 3rd Defendant/applicant: Anthony Gandedzi (per his lawful attorney Felicia Gandedzi)
Court
ghahc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
24 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Burden of Proof, Perjury Allegation, Evidence, Jurisdiction
Source Language
eng
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Burden of Proof Perjury Allegation Evidence Jurisdiction

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evelyn Dzigbordi Anku

Plaintiff/respondent

Togbe Vulley

Defendant

Charles Prah

Defendant

Anthony Gandedzi (per his lawful attorney Felicia Gandedzi)

3rd Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff/respondent resides and works outside the jurisdiction (Ghana) so as to warrant an order for security for costs
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff/respondent provided a false address or committed perjury
  3. 3 Whether the applicant discharged the burden of proof for security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that the plaintiff/respondent resides or works outside Ghana, or that the addresses provided were false or intended to deceive. No credible or admissible evidence was produced to support the allegations. Therefore, the grounds for ordering security for costs were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for security for costs is dismissed as misconceived.
  • Cost of GHC2,500.00 awarded in favour of the respondent.