[1970]DLHC2132 • December 14, 1970 • High Court
MICAH vs. BRUCE
The respondent (plaintiff in district court) sued the appellant for arrears of rent amounting to N¢653.40 for the period January 1968 to December 1969 and sought ejectment from rented premises. The appellant was served with summons and affidavit particulars of claim, denied the claim by affidavit, and later filed an 'amended statement of defence' which included a counterclaim for damages for breach of tenancy and removal of windows. The procedural irregularities and jurisdictional issues arose from the timing and manner of filing the counterclaim and amendments.
read moreThe respondent (who was the plaintiff in the district court action) in this case sued the appellant in the district court grade I on 6 January 1970 claiming N¢653.40 being arrears of rent from January 1968 up to December 1969 and an order of the court ejecting the appellant from the premises which he had apparently rented to her. The writ of summons was served on the appellant on 16 January 1970 and the return day was 21 January 1970. The summons served was accompanied by an affidavit setting out the particulars of the demand and this clearly gave the appellant reasonably sufficient information as to the details of the respondent’s claim, in accordance with Order 5, r. 1 of the Second Schedule to the Courts Ordinance, Cap. 4 (1959 Rev.), the rules governing civil procedure in the district courts. On the next day after receiving the summons and the particulars aforesaid the appellant filed an affidavit denying the claim. It is not clear why this was done except perhaps that having...