[1993]DLCA5044 • February 10, 1993 • Court of Appeal
MENSAH AND OTHERS vs. MENSAH AND OTHERS
The plaintiffs commenced proceedings in the High Court. During trial, counsel for the plaintiffs was absent twice (10 and 16 October 1992). On 10 October, the trial judge deemed the plaintiffs' case closed due to counsel's absence. On 14 October, counsel applied to reopen the case, explaining his absence was due to attending another court. The trial judge allowed reopening on condition that costs of ¢6,000 per plaintiff be paid. On 16 October, counsel was again absent due to illness, but no evidence was presented to the court. The trial judge awarded costs of ¢120,000 against the plaintiffs for this absence. The plaintiffs appealed these cost orders.
read moreBROBBEY JA. A writ was issued in the High Court. While the trial was in progress, counsel for the plaintiffs absented himself twice; these were on 10 and 16 October 1992. On 14 October 1992, the trial judge awarded costs of ¢6,000 against each of the five plaintiffs for bringing the proceedings to an end on 10 October 1992. On 16 October 1992, she awarded ¢120,000 against the plaintiffs for the same reason. Against those two orders on costs, counsel for the plaintiffs filed the appeal to this court. The circumstances surrounding the first award of costs were these: The trial was in progress in court on 10 October 1992 when one of the plaintiffs announced that his lawyer was absent and therefore he would not proceed with the trial. The judge then ruled that the plaintiffs’ case was deemed to have been closed. On 14 October 1992, which was the adjourned date, counsel for the plaintiffs applied for the case to be re-opened for the plaintiffs to continue their testimonies. Counsel e...