HALIDU TAMINU VRS DR. EMMANUEL KWAKU ASANTE (C1/12/23) [2024] GHACC 320 (9 October 2024)

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT MPRAESO, EASTERN REGION, BEFORE HER HONOUR MRS ADWOA AKYAAMAA OFOSU, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE ON WEDNESDAY 9TH OCTOBER, 2024 __________________________________________________________________ C1/12/23 HALIDU TAMIMU - PLAINTIFF VRS DR. EMMANUEL KWAKU ASANTE - DEFENDANT ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………. TIME: 9:25 PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT PRESENT DEFENDANT/APPLICANT PRESENT KWAME ANTWI AFRIYIE ESQ FOR DEFENDANT/APPLICANT PRESENT KWADWO OSEI ODAME ESQ FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT PRESENT RULING – MOTION ON NOTICE TO SET ASIDE FINAL JUDGMENT ENTERED ON 16TH FEBRUARY, 2024 AGAINST THE DEFENDANT FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION The plaintiff instituted the instant action on the 5th of June, 2023 against the defendant for the following reliefs: Page 1 of 18 a. Declaration of title to All that parcel of land, lying situated and being at Kwahu Asona in the Kwahu West District in the Eastern Region of the Republic of Ghana containing an approximate area of 2.65 Acres or 1.15 Hectare and bounded on the East by Survey Pillar marked from SGE A4568/21/1 – SGE A468/21/2 bearing of 174⁰ 20 - measuring on that side a distance of 385.2 - more or less on the SOUTH by SGEA4568/19/2 – SGE A4568/21/3 bearing of 263⁰ 09 on that side a distance of 300 – 7 – more or less on the WEST by SGE A4568/19/3 – SGE A4568/21/4 bearing 354⁰ 37 measuring on that side a distance of 360⁰ 09 more or less on the NORTH by SURVEY PILLAR marked from SGE A4568/19/4 – SGE A4568/19/4 – SGE A4568/21/1 bearing 078⁰ 31 measuring on that side a distance of 300⁰ 4 – more or less b. Damages for trespass c. Recovery of possession of the parcel of land d. Perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants workmen etc from entering and or doing anything on the disputed land On the 24th of July, 2023, upon a search conducted at the registry of this court which indicated per an affidavit of non-service that three attempts had been made for personal service unsuccessfully, the plaintiff then represented by Phidelis Osei Duah Esq, applied for an order for substituted service through his counsel and same was granted. After due service of the writ of summons and statement of claim by substituted service and the court being satisfied that the suit has been brought to the notice of the defendant, proceeded to hear the matter by taking the evidence of the plaintiff and his witness and delivered judgment accordingly on the 16th of February, 2024. It is this judgment that the defendant (herein after called the “Defendant/Applicant”) has brought the instant motion for same to be set aside for lack of jurisdiction. Page 2 of 18 The gravamen of the 37 paragraphed affidavit in support of the motion filed on the 28th of June, 2024, deposed to by the Defendant/Applicant as well as the supplementary affidavit filed on the 25th of July, 2024 is simply that he was not personally served with the processes and that based on a misrepresentation by the bailiff that he attempted personal service on the plaintiff on the 7th, 19th and 26th of July, 2023, this court erroneously granted an application for substituted service for the writ of summons and statement of claim to be served on the Defendant/Applicant by (a) posting on the notice board of the Circuit Court, (b) posting same on the disputed land and (c) giving a copy to the Defendant/Applicant’s best friend, one Joseph Ameyaw without averting its mind to the rules of court as provided by CI 47. The Defendant/Applicant deposed that he does not live on the disputed land which is a bare land neither does he carry business on the land and the said Joseph Ameyaw is not even his friend let alone being his closest friend as has been described by the plaintiff (hereinafter called ‘the Plaintiff/ Respondent’) for him to be served by substituted service through him. In further deposition, he stated that the Plaintiff/Respondent has provided his exact and correct residential address on the writ of summons but this honourable court failed to order the writ of summons to be served on him by his residential address where the writ of summons and statement of claim would come to his notice. That the said service of the writ and statement of claim was improper and to that extent he was not served with the Plaintiff’s writ of summons to clothe this court with jurisdiction to determine the matter against him. That the court heard a one sided case thus breaching the audi alterem partem rule of natural justice. The Applicant further deposed that the instant suit came to his attention when he visited the disputed land on the 24th of May, 2024 and he decided to pass by Ameyaw’s house in Nkawkaw to greet him as he is one of the family members that sold the land to him. That according to Ameyaw, when the writ was brought to him he rejected same and said he Page 3 of 18 had no means of bringing the writ to his attention. That when Ameyaw told him about the suit he came to the court and it was confirmed to him that there was such suit at the court. After this confirmation, he informed his lawyer who conducted a search at the registry of the court and it revealed that the writ of summons and statement of claim was served on him by substituted service. The Defendant/Applicant reiterated that the said Joseph Ameyaw is not his friend and he does not even know his telephone number let alone where he (Defendant/Applicant) lives and that the Plaintiff/Respondent chose to serve him by substituted service where it would be impossible to come to his notice. The Applicant further deposed that the disputed plot of land is his bonafide property which he acquired in 2020 from the chief of Obo, Osabarima Afari Buagyan and has registered same. That he has a solid defence and is ready to defend the plaintiff’s action and therefore prays the court to set the final judgment given by this court on the 16th of February, 2024 aside. The application was met with a vehement opposition by the Plaintiff/Respondent. In his affidavit in opposition filed on the 8th of July, 2024, the respondent deposed that the application lacks merit and same is only intended to frustrate him from enjoying the fruits of the judgment he obtained against the Applicant. He deposed that he has been advised by his lawyer and verily believes same to be true that the jurisdiction of this court was properly invoked for which reason the final judgment delivered in his favour on the 16th of February, 2024 complied with the rules of natural justice and the court was clothed with jurisdiction to deliver same. That the Defendant/Applicant’s own Exhibit KAA1 shows that the bailiff of this court swore an affidavit of non- service indicating the number of times he attempted personal service on the Applicant albeit unsuccessful and therefore there is no basis for the Defendant/Applicant to impute misrepresentation or Page 4 of 18 deception to the bailiff of this court when the Defendant/Applicant has no evidence whatsoever. In reaction to paragraph 7 of the affidavit in support, the Respondent deposed that he has been advised by his lawyer and verily believes same to be true that the rules of court provide for the bailiff to indicate the dates on which he attempted personal service on a party and not the location where the bailiff attempted service and therefore the bailiff discharged his duties completely when he indicated the dates on which he attempted personal service. Further, that in response to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the affidavit in support there is no requirement for the bailiff to name the person or persons who informed him that the Defendant/Applicant had travelled or where he had travelled to and therefore this court did not err in any way when it granted the application for an order for substituted service. The Plaintiff/Respondent further deposed that he has been advised and verily believes same to be true that once the Defendant/Applicant was duly served through an order for substituted service, the honourable court complied with the rules of natural justice for which reason the Defendant/Applicant was not denied the opportunity to be heard. The Plaintiff/Respondent further deposed that Joseph Ameyaw has a relationship with the Defendant/Applicant that is why he was referred to as a close friend of the Defendant/Applicant and that ‘close friend’ was used in the popular sense. That the deposition in paragraph 20 of the affidavit in support is completely false because Joseph Ameyaw did not reject the writ of summons and statement of claim but in fact accepted same and was captured in a photograph. The Plaintiff/Respondent attached the said photograph as Exhibit HT2 series. The Plaintiff/Respondent further deposed that the deposition in paragraph 27 of the affidavit in support is a complete falsehood because Joseph Ameyaw knows the Page 5 of 18 telephone number of the Defendant/Applicant and indeed it was Joseph Ameyaw who called the Defendant/Applicant to inform him that he had made a complaint against him and Joseph Ameyaw at the Nkawkaw police station. The Plaintiff/Respondent again deposed that the Defendant/Applicant admits that Joseph Ameyaw is a member of the family that sold the land in dispute to him and so it will be incredulous and beyond belief for Joseph Ameyaw not to have the telephone number of the Applicant when he is the eyes and ears of the Applicant on the ground with respect to the land in dispute. The Plaintiff/Respondent again deposed that Joseph Ameyaw is a former Assemblyman and in fact in one of their Assembly meetings (as the Plaintiff/Respondent) is an Assembly man, Joseph Ameyaw called the Defendant/Applicant in his presence to inform the Defendant/Applicant about his complaint to the police with respect to causing unlawful damage to his property on the land in dispute. The Plaintiff/Respondent further deposed that the Defendant/Applicant was given the opportunity to defend the instant suit when he was served with the writ of summons and statement of claim but he elected to ignore the court processes until it is too late in the day to defend the suit. That the instant application is an abuse of the court process and same ought to be dismissed with costs. That the allegation of misrepresentation leveled against the bailiff is only intended to deceive the court to unnecessarily prolong this suit which has already been determined by this court on its merits in his favour. The Plaintiff/Respondent thus prayed the court to dismiss the application. The court was moved by counsel for the Defendant/Applicant on the 2nd day of August, 2024. Counsel relied on all the depositions in the affidavit in support and the supplementary affidavit and forcefully argued that this court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the Defendant/Applicant was not served with the writ of summons and statement of claim. He particularly questioned the affidavit of non- service as to where the bailiff attempted service, where he was told the Defendant/Applicant had travelled Page 6 of 18 to and who told him the Defendant/Applicant had travelled as the bailiff was enjoined to do so. He relied on order 7 r 2(1) of the High Court Civil (Procedure) Rules 2004 (C.I.47) as amended in support of this submission. Counsel for the Applicant particularly relied on order 7 rule 4 of (C.I. 47) supra and submitted that the mode of service ordered by the court is not sanctioned by the rules hence the court fell in error when it ordered for substituted service through those modes and that the suit did not come to the attention of the Defendant/Applicant. Counsel further relied on the following cases and reiterated that service on the Defendnat/Applicant was not proper and it was not within the ambit of the law and therefore prayed the court to set aside the final judgment against the defendant: • In Re Yendi Skin Affairs Andani v. Abdulai [1982-83] GLR 1080 • Friesland Frico Domo Alias Friesland Foods B V v. Dachel Company Limited [2012] 1 SCGLR 41 • The Republic v. High Court; Exparte Salloum & Others (Senyo Coker Interested Party) [2011] 1 SCGLR 574 • Ankomah v. Hanson [1987-88] 2 GLR 26 • Visquez v. Quarshie [1968] GLR 62 Turning to the affidavit in opposition filed by the Respondent, counsel for the plaintiff attacked the Exhibit HT series which are photographs showing some documents posted on a water tank and photographs of the bailiff of the court delivering a document to another person and submitted that they do not know the purpose of Exhibit HT1 and they also do not know the persons in Exhibit HT2 and Exhibit HT2 B. He contended that the said exhibits were afterthoughts as they do not form part of the proceedings. That the suit came to the attention of the Defendant/Applicant on 24th May, 2024 when he visited Page 7 of 18 the disputed land and decided to pass by the house of Joseph Ameyaw to say hello to him by which time judgment had already been delivered. Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent on his part submitted that ordinarily all processes are to be served personally on a party. However the law maker knows that it is not always possible to effect personal service on parties to a suit all the time and therefore provision has been made in the law for other modes of service. Counsel for the plaintiff/Respondent referred to order 7 rule 6 of C.I. 47 which provides for substituted service which can be resorted to after three attempts of personal service have failed. He submitted that by the Defendant/Applicant’s own Exhibit KAA1, which is the affidavit of non-service sworn to by the bailiff, he made three attempts at personal service and indicated the specific dates. Counsel further submitted that the three modes of service stated in the application for substituted service, clearly fall within the ambit of the rules of court which the court had a discretion to grant same. That the court only assumed jurisdiction to hear the matter after it satisfied itself that the Defendant/Applicant had been duly served. Counsel buttressed his submission with Exhibit HT1 which shows the processes that were posted on the disputed land for example. In explaining the Exhibits which counsel for the Defendant/Applicant said they did not know what they were, counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent submitted that Exhibit HT2 is a photograph of the bailiff and Joseph Ameyaw. Exhibit HT2 (b) is a photograph of Joseph Ameyaw the Defendant/Applicant’s friend holding in his hands the writ of summons and statement of claim served on the Defendant/Applicant through him. He therefore submitted that the deposition to the effect that Joseph Ameyaw rejected service of the writ of summons is a complete falsehood and that it is incredulous for the Applicant to claim in 2024 that he does not Page 8 of 18 have the telephone number of Joseph Ameyaw, a person he passed by to greet one day when he visited the land. He further submitted that when the Plaintiff/Respondent lodged a complaint of causing unlawful damage in respect of the disputed land at the Nkawkaw police station, it was Joseph Ameyaw who called the Defendant/Applicant and informed him about it. Furthermore, Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent relying on the judgment of Rebecca Sittie J in the case of Samuel Sakyifio and Anor v. Nana Ofori Antwi Boasiako suit no. AC/473/2011 submitted that the Defendant/Applicant was duly served and he cannot be heard to allege a breach in the audi alterem partem rule of natural justice when he deliberately failed to attend court. He further submitted that the Defendant/Applicant has failed to show that anything untoward occurred and that the instant application is a disguised review application. Counsel made a further submission that the Plaintiff/Respondent complied with due process but the Defendant/Applicant elected to ignore the processes that came to his notice through his friend Joseph Ameyaw and so he should not be allowed to re-open the matter because the judgment delivered by the court was based on the merits of the case. He therefore prayed the court to dismiss the application. Order 7 Rule 2(1) of the High Court Civil (Procedure) Rules 2004, (C.I.47) as amended provides that: A document which is required to be served on a person shall be served personally unless the express provisions of these Rules otherwise provide or the court otherwise directs (2) This rule shall not affect the power of the court under any provision of these rules to dispense with the requirement of personal service Page 9 of 18 Order 7 Rule 4 provides that: (1) Service of a document not to be served personally may be effected (a) By leaving it at the proper address of the person to be served; or (b) By sending it by registered post bearing a return address and addressed to the person to be served at the address of the person; or (c) In such other manner as the court may direct (2) For the purpose of this rule, the proper address of a person on whom a document is to be served shall be the address provided by that person , but if at the time when service is effected the person has no address for service, the proper address of the person shall be (a) In the case of an individual, his or her usual or last known place of residence or business; or (b) In the case of individuals who are suing or being sued in the name of a firm, the principal or last known place of business of the firm in this country; or (c) In the case of a body corporate, its registered or principal office; or (d) In any other case, the business address of any lawyer who is acting for the person in the cause or matter in connection with which the document is to be served (3) Nothing in this rule shall be taken as prohibiting the personal service of any documents or as affecting any enactment which provides for any other manner in which documents may be served on bodies corporate Order 7 r 6 of C.I. 47 further provides that: (1) If a document is required to be served personally on any person and it appears to the court (a) That three or more attempts have been made without success to effect personal service, and that any further attempt to effect personal service may result in undue delay; or Page 10 of 18 (b) That it is otherwise impracticable for any reason to serve the document personally, the court may make an order for substituted service of that document (2) An application for an order for substituted service shall be made exparte and shall be supported by an affidavit stating the facts on which the application is founded (3) Substituted service of a document in relation to which an order is made under this rule, is effected by taking such steps as the court may direct to bring the documents to the notice of the person to be served (4) Without prejudice to the generality to sub rule (3) the court may direct substituted service to be effected in any of the following ways: (a) By service in accordance with rule 4 of this order; (b) By delivery of the document to an agent of the person to be served or some other person if there is reasonable ground to believe that the document will through that person come to the knowledge of the person to be served; or (c) By sending the document by registered post addressed to the person to be served at an address to be specified in the affidavit made under rule 9(2) at which there is reasonable ground to believe that it would reach the person (d) by notice put up at the court or some other public place in the region in which the cause or matter is commenced or at the usual or last known place of residence or business of the person to be served; or (e) By advertisement in the media within the jurisdiction of the court (5) an order of substituted service may be varied at any time with respect to the method of service directed by the order. Page 11 of 18 From the submission of counsel for the Defendant/Applicant who hinged his argument on Order 7 rule 4 of C.I. 47 which is in respect of documents not requiring personal service, it is my respectful view that he misconstrued that provision considering the facts of the instant case and I owe it a duty to throw more light on the issue of ‘documents requiring personal service’ and ‘documents that do not require personal service’ as provided for under C.I 47. Two modes of service of court processes are provided under the Rules namely personal and non-personal service. See Civil Procedure, A practical approach by S. Kwami Tetteh at page 215. Under C.I. 47, there are processes that have been specified as requiring personal service. These processes are: • Writ of summons • Originating notice of motion • Petition • The following processes for service out of the jurisdiction : notice of a writ of summons, petition and originating notice of motion where the laws of the country in which service is effected require personal service • Counterclaim against a person not a party to the action • Application to strike out an action for want of prosecution after the death of plaintiff • Application in a representative proceeding for leave to enforce judgment or order against a person not a party to the proceeding • Third party notice • Writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum • Judgment or order requiring a person to do or abstain from doing an act Page 12 of 18 • Application for leave to issue a writ of sequestration • Order for the examination of a judgment debtor • Garnishee order to show cause • Committal order • Notice of Appeal to the High Court • A notice of land title appeal • Notice of Application for Judicial review • Notice to prove will or renounce probate • Writ of subpoena • Application for leave to execute a judgment or order against a partner • Entry of judgement See A practical approach to Civil Procedure supra at pages 216 and 217 Here the process involved is a writ of summons which requires personal service in terms of Order 7 r 12 (1) of C.I.47 which provides that: “Subject to these rules and any other enactments, a writ shall be served separately on each defendant. This connotes personal service”. Therefore, a writ of summons is not ‘a document not requiring personal service’ as stipulated under Order 7 r 4 of C.I.47 and so the provisions under Order 7 rule 4 which counsel for the Defendant/Applicant so heavily relied on in my opinion is not mandatorily applicable to the instant case though the court can exercise its discretion in terms of Order 7 Rule 6 (4)(a) of C.I. 47 and order a process requiring personal service, Page 13 of 18 like a writ of summons, to be effected in the manner provided for under order 7 rule 4 of C.I. 47. The writ of summons being a document to be served personally therefore, the rules specifically provide that if such a document for some reasons cannot be served on the party personally after three attempts without success, an application for substituted service can be made to the court supported by an affidavit stating the facts on which the application is founded. Order 7 rule 6(4) thus gives a discretion to the court to direct substituted service in any of the modes stated therein as reproduced above, which includes but not limited to the manner prescribed in Order 7 rule 4 as afore mentioned. As can be clearly seen from order 7 rule 6(4) (b) of C.I. 47, one of the modes of service under an order for substituted service is by delivery of the document to an agent of the person to be served or some other person, [Emphasis is mine] if there is reasonable ground to believe that the document will through that person, come to the knowledge of the person to be served; or, per Order 7 rule 6(4) (d), by notice put up at the court or some other public place in the region in which the cause or matter is commenced; or, at the usual or last known place of residence or business of the person to be served. Order 7r15 (a) also provides that: “where a writ is indorsed with a claim for the recovery of possession of immovable property, and the court is satisfied on an ex-parte application that no person appears to be in possession of the property, the court may if satisfied that service cannot be otherwise effected on any defendant, authorise service on that defendant to be effected by affixing a copy of the writ on a conspicuous part of the immovable property”. In the instant case, the court upon satisfying itself that three attempts have been made unsuccessfully by the bailiff as per the affidavit of non -service Exhibit KAA1, and upon hearing counsel for the plaintiff/Applicant therein who convinced the court that Joseph Page 14 of 18 Ameyaw is a person through whom service of the writ of summons and statement of claim could be effected on the defendant, granted the application and ordered for the writ of summons to be served through Joseph Ameyaw in terms of Order 7r 6(4)(b) and further ordered for copies of the writ of summons to be posted on the notice board of the court in terms of Order 7 r 6(4)(d) and for same to be posted at a place on the disputed land in terms of Order 7 r 15 (a). Clearly therefore, the court fully complied with the rules of court and exercised its discretion judiciously and did nothing outside the rules. In the instant application, the Plaintiff/Respondent has demonstrated beyond doubt that the orders of the court was fully complied with. Particularly, Exhibit HT2B dated 11th August, 2023, show the bailiff of this court Mr Ebenezer Frimpong handing over a document to the said Joseph Ameyaw who actually received same and so the assertion by the Defendant/Applicant that the said Joseph Ameyaw rejected the writ of summons cannot be true. Furthermore, even though the Defendant/Applicant claims that the said Joseph Ameyaw is not his friend and does not have his phone number, the Defendant/Applicant could not challenge the Plaintiff/Respondent’s assertion that when a complaint was made by the Plaintiff/Respondent to the police in respect of the disputed land, it was the said Joseph Ameyaw who called the Defendant/Applicant and informed him about it. Again from the Defendant/Applicant’s own showing, on one occasion when he visited the disputed land he decided to pass by the said Joseph Ameyaw’s house to say hello to him and it was at that point that he got to know of the suit against him. This in my humble view is a confirmation that Joseph Ameyaw was a person through whom the suit could reasonably be brought to the attention of the Applicant. Furthermore, the record shows that counsel for the Defendant /Applicant applied for certified true copies of all proceedings and processes in this instant case in a letter dated 21st May, 2024 which was received by the registry of this court on the 22nd of May, 2024. Therefore it is my view that the assertion by the Defendant/ Applicant that the suit came Page 15 of 18 to his attention on the 24th of May, 2024 cannot be true because it is obvious that he instructed his counsel in respect of the instant suit before 24th May, 2024. This again shows that the Defendant/Applicant was not candid with the court. From my reading of the affidavit in support of the instant application together with the supplementary affidavit with all its annexures as well as the affidavit in opposition with its annexures and upon hearing the rival submissions of counsel for the parties herein and further upon reading the applicable rules, it is my view that not only did the court conform to the rules in granting the order for substituted service but the writ and statement of claim was actually brought to the notice of the Defendant/Applicant who for reasons best known to him elected to stay away from the proceedings. The court is very much mindful of the consequences of proceeding in an action where a party who stands to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings does not have notice of such proceedings. However, where a party fails to appear in court after due service on him, he is said to have deliberately failed to take advantage of the opportunity given him to be heard and the audi alterem partem rule cannot be said to have been breached. Thus Wood C.J. in the case of Republic v. High Court (Fast Track Division) Accra; Exparte State Housing Co. Ltd (No2) (Koranten-Amoako Interested Party) [2009] SCGLR 185 stated: “A party who disables himself or herself from being heard in any proceedings cannot later turn round and accuse an adjudicator of having breached the rules of Natural Justice” Furthermore in the case of Mence Mensah v. Asiama [2011] 38 GMJ 174 SC, the Supreme Court speaking through Baffoe Bonnie JSC cited with approval the dictum of Asiamah JSC in the case of Poku v. Poku [2007-2008] SC GLR 996 thus: “It is a salubrious principle of our jurisdiction that a litigant should have the opportunity of being heard, of telling his side of the story, of being free to present evidence and argument to buttress his case; but it is also settled law and dictates of common sense requires also that once these Page 16 of 18 opportunities have been extended to the litigant but the litigant decides not to avail himself of them within the period of the trial, he would not, on judicial considerations be permitted to come later and plead for the reactivating of the very opportunities he declined to embrace. If such an indulgence is given the public confidence in our judicial system will be seriously put at Jeopardy and the resultant consequences would be the breeding of an inimical infestation of a cancerous judicial tumor of our judicial system See also: • Republic v. Court of Appeal, Exparte Eastern Alloy Company Limited [2007- 2008] 2 SCGLR 371 • Republic v. High Court, (Human Rights Div) Accra; Exparte, Josephine Akita, (Mancell-Egala, Attorney General Interested Party)[2010] SCGLR 374 • Ghana consolidated Diamonds Ltd v. Tantuo and Others [2001-2002] 2 GLR 150 It is therefore my conclusion that to the extent that the court fully complied with the rules of court in making the order for substituted service and the suit was actually brought to the notice of the Defendant/Applicant as has been demonstrated, the court’s jurisdiction was properly invoked and was entitled to proceed with the trial to its conclusion as it did in the instant case and there was absolutely no breach of the audi alterem partem rule. See: • In Re West Coast Dyeing Industry Limited; Adams v. Tandoh [1984-86] 2 GLR 561 C.A • Ankomah v. City Investment Co. Ltd [2007-2008] 1 SCGLR 1068 Page 17 of 18 In the result, the application to set aside the judgment of this court dated 16th February, 2024 is dismissed. Costs of GH₵5,000.00 is awarded against the Defendant/ Applicant. H/H ADWOA AKYAAMAA OFOSU (MRS) CIRCUIT COURT JUDGMENT Page 18 of 18