MANSAH vs. KAAWUOH [1961]DLHC10225

Date	1961-12-25
Suit No.	G L R 777 – 778
Citation No.	[1961]DLHC10225

DJABANOR J.

I. R. ABOAGYE FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

J. PREMPEH FOR DEFENDANT-APPLICANT.

[1961]DLHC10225
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >MANSAH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KAAWUOH<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;line-height:150%;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">G L
R 777 – 778&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:&nbsp; 25TH DECEMBER, 1961<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>I. R. ABOAGYE FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

J. PREMPEH FOR DEFENDANT-APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;DJABANOR
J.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This is an application to set aside a
judgment obtained on the 27th November, 1961, under Order 14, rule 1.1 Normally
a judgment obtained under Order 14, rule 1 cannot be set aside—Spira v. Spira.2
Printed boldly on the front of the writ are the words: "Specially Endorsed
Writ, Order 3, rule 6" in capitals, and the endorsement reads:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"Plaintiff 's claim against the
defendant is for the sum of £G617 6s. 8d. being balance of an amount of £G1,000
due and owing to the plaintiff as per the defendant's promissory note dated
22nd day of January, 1957."<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The defendant entered appearance by counsel
on the 28th October 1961, eight days after service of the writ upon the
defendant.&nbsp; On the 21st November, 1961,
the plaintiff filed a motion on notice under Order 14, rule 1 for leave to sign
final judgment for the amount endorsed on the writ.&nbsp; This motion was served on the defendant's
solicitor on the 25th November, 1961.&nbsp;
When the motion came on to be heard on the 27th November, 1961, there
was no appearance for the defendant, consequently no application was made for
leave to defend, and leave was granted to the plaintiff to sign judgment for
the amount claimed.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;On the 27th November, 1961, however, when the
application was made for leave to sign judgment under Order 14, rule 1, the
defendant's statement of defence had been filed.&nbsp; In the case of an ordinary writ of summons
when default is made in respect of filing a defence and a motion for judgment
is filed in accordance with Order 27, if the statement of defence was filed
before the date of the hearing of the motion the court cannot ignore it.&nbsp; Is it the same in the case of an application
under Order 14, rule 1? Upon reviewing the authorities I find that it is
imperative that &nbsp;leave to defend be
applied for and obtained in order to prevent judgment being obtained.&nbsp; To do this the defendant must formally ask
for the leave.&nbsp; The procedure laid down
for this specially endorsed writ has to be adhered to strictly in order to get
the real benefit of the rule.&nbsp; After
comparing the endorsement herein with that in the Appendix to the White
Book.—Appendix C, section 4, No. 3 at pp. 2287, I am satisfied that the writ is
specially endorsed.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Following the authority of Spira v. Spira
therefore I hold that the judgment cannot be set aside under Order 27, rule
16.&nbsp; The application is dismissed with 5
guineas costs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;DECISION<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Application dismissed.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;

&nbsp;</main>