Hybrid H. Integrated V The Redeemed Christian Church of God (A2/76/2022) [2024] GHADC 670 (5 November 2024)

BEFOREHERHONOURNANAADWOASERWAADUA-ADONTENG,CIRCUITCOURT JUDGESITTINGASANADDITIONALMAGISTRATEDISTRICTCOURTGBESE ACCRAONTUESDAYTHE5THDAYOFNOVEMBER,2024. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SUITNO.A2/76/2022 HYBRIDH.INTERGRATED ::: PLAINTIFF VRS. THEREDEEMEDCHRISTIANCHURCHOFGOD::: DEFENDANT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RULINGONMOTIONTODISMISSSUIT ThisisaMotiontoDismiss thesuitfiledbyPlaintiffon 16thFebruary,2022forspecialdamages of GH¢78,000, interest on the GH¢78,000 from 2018 to date of final payment, General damages ofGH¢250,000.00andcost. In the Writ of Summons, Plaintiff claims it entered into a tenancy agreement with one Crest Finance House Limited for shops located at Kokomlemle in 2010. However, in 2016, the Defendant informed all the tenants of Crest Finance House that it had taken over ownership of Crest Finance Ltd and its assets including the premises occupied by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff said without hesitation, it started paying rent to the Defendant, its new landlords until December, 2019,whenDefendant suedoneofplaintiff’s directorsintendingtheplaintifftovacatetheshop. While the matter was still pending, Plaintiff claims Defendant undertook certain preventive conductwhichmadeitimpossibleforPlaintifftocontinueitsbusinessoperationsandbyreason ofthisunlawfulconductonthepartofthedefendant,Plaintiffsaysitwascompelledrelocatean alternative place of business. By reason of this plaintiff caused a writ to be issued against the defendant and is therefore suing the Defendant for GH¢78,000.00 being the acquisition of the new premises to operate its business when it was already a tenant of the defendant and cost of reinstallingaprintingmachinewithoutwhichplaintiffcannotoperateitsbusiness. It is the argument of Defendant per its Motion to Dismiss suit that this case is a case which has already been determined by this Court and therefore the current suit is on abuse of Court process. Defendant attaches a Consent Judgment by this Court differently constituted by H/W. Felicia Anane-Antwi on 10th September, 2020. That suit was between the Defendant herein suing as Plaintiff and some 16 persons. The plaintiff does not appear to be a party to that suit. Attached also to the Motion Paper is Minutes of a meeting between the Plaintiff therein defendant herein acting through its representatives and 12 persons listed as tenants. It is the further argument of Defendant that the Plaintiff herein (Hybrid Solution) acting through its owner, was part of the Terms of Settlement adopted by the Court and therefore the Consent JudgmentisbindingonthepartiesandcannotberedeterminedbythisCourt. Defendant again argues that there is no matter pending between the parties for which the Defendant owes money to the Plaintiff because the Kaneshie District Court has already determined the matter and attaches what is marked as exhibit RC3 purporting to be a Motion on Notice to set aside Judgment delivered by H/W. Oheneba Kuffor on 9th May, 2022. There is no ruling attached to the Motion Paper indicating whether or the Court did in fact rule on the motion.WhatisattachedisaFormalDecreewhichindicatesthatRedeemedChristianChurchis torecoverfromHybridHtheamountofGH¢35,364.00andcostofGH¢1,000.00. It is uncertain why the Ruling of the Court was not attached for ease of reference and confirmation that indeed the Court heard and ruled on the Motion to Dismiss suit. It is however my understanding that, the Defendant prays, the current parties before this court appeared before this Court in 2020 and Terms of Settlement filed and adopted as Consent Judgment between the parties. Particularly, for the Consent Judgment I must be quick to add that it was one Quaye who also appears as Christian Quaye who was a party to the Terms of Settlement and no evidence has been provided as to his capacity in that meeting except as tenant. It is not certain whether he was acting as a representative of Hybrid Solution in that meeting. With respect to the suit before the Kaneshie Court, I must first comment on the fact that the documentattached as the purportedMotionto SetAsideJudgment is fraughtwith delineations and corrections apparent on the face of the Motion Paper so much so as to cause a certain apprehension as to its authenticity and acceptance by a court. But without disputing the integrityoftheLawyerwhoattachedthatprocess,Ifindthatitonlyshowsthepartiesappeared before the Kaneshie Court. There is no Judgment attached for this Court to ascertain what the subject matter of contention and cause of action was for the Court’s determination for res judicata to prevail. So far what can easily be ascertained is that some of the parties before this court also appeared before the Kaneshie court. Even if the parties who appeared before this courtwerethesameparties beforetheKaneshiecourt,itis notonlytheparties thatmustbethe same for Res judicata to apply.The verysubject matter of the case as well as the cause of action between the parties must have been finally dealt with by an earlier court. Given that the applicant has not been able to satisfy the requirement necessary for res judicata to prevail, I havenootheroptionbuttodismisstheapplicationforwantofmerit. H/H.NANAADWOASERWAADUA-ADONTENG (CIRCUITCOURTJUDGE)