[1992]DLHC2013 • March 10, 1992 • High Court
EWUSIE-MENSAH vs. EWUSIE-MENSAH AND ANOTHER
The plaintiff had closed his case and the defendant was being cross-examined when the defendant filed a motion under Order 32, r. 6 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A) seeking final judgment based on alleged admissions by the plaintiff in pleadings and during trial. The defendant argued that the plaintiff admitted the reliefs sought in the defence and counterclaim, and urgent judgment was necessary due to the deteriorating condition of items in the plaintiff's possession. The plaintiff opposed the motion, contending no such admissions were made and that the motion was irregular and misconceived.
read moreJUDGMENT OF SAPONG J. The plaintiff had closed his case. The defendant was being cross-examined. In the course of the cross-examination, learned counsel for the defence filed a motion under Order 32, r. 6 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A) for an order to sign final judgment upon admissions made by the plaintiff in the pleadings and during the trial. Paragraphs (2), (3) and (5) of the supporting affidavit read: “(2) I am advised by counsel and verily believe same to be true that the plaintiff has in examination-in-chief on oath as well as during cross-examination admitted the reliefs sought by the co-defendant in paragraphs (14), (24) and (27) (d) of the statement of defence and counterclaim filed on 14 March 1991. (3) I verily believe that the plaintiff made these admissions on 2 May 1991. The plaintiff also makes part admission in this respect in paragraph (15) of his reply filed on 4 April 1991 . . . (5) There are compelling reasons why the honourab.....