TAYLOR vs. TAYLOR [1962]DLSC1717

Date	1962-11-12
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLSC1717

VAN LARE JSC

BLAY JSC

AKUFO-ADDO J.S.C.

P. JONES (WITH HIM AMANKWATIA) FOR THE RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

HEWARD-MILLS JNR. FOR THE PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

[1962]DLSC1717
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">TAYLOR <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">TAYLOR <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 2 GLR 122<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

DATE:<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0"> 12TH NOVEMBER, 1962.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

P.
JONES (WITH HIM AMANKWATIA) FOR THE RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

HEWARD-MILLS,
JNR., FOR THE PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

VAN LARE, BLAY AND AKUFO-ADDO,
JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
BLAY J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>The suit seems to have a very chequered history. The petition of
the appellant’s wife was filed on the 14th December, 1957, and in it she prayed
for an order of judicial separation from her husband, the appellant. The main
ground for the petition was that her husband had committed adultery with one
Elizabeth Kessie. The petitioner named Elizabeth Kessie as the woman who in
part had motivated the filing of the petition, and she was a person named
therein.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The petition, according to the record of proceedings, was served
on the respondent on the 10th January, 1958. It does not appear from the record
that the petition was ever served on Elizabeth Kessie, the person named
therein. Indeed it appears that service of the copy of the petition was never
intended to be effected on the person named and was therefore never addressed
or directed for service upon her. The effect of this omission will appear
hereinafter. The respondent, that is, the present appellant, having been served
with the petition, filed an answer thereto in which he denied every allegation
made against him by the petitioner. His answer also contained a cross-prayer
for the dissolution of his marriage with the petitioner. This was filed on the
16th January, 1958. To this answer and cross-petition the petitioner filed a
reply on the 29th January, 1958.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The next step taken by the petitioner was an application by motion
for an order of alimony pendente lite. This application was heard by
Sarkodee-Adoo, J., as he then was, and refused on the 3rd March, 1958.<o:p></o:p>It appears that no further step was taken by the petitioner until
May 1959, when her solicitor, without obtaining the registrar’s certificate as
provided by the rules of court, filed notice of intention to set the cause down
for trial. This was done on the 6th May, 1958. Nothing, however, appears to
have been done on that date, and between May 1958, and March 1960, no further
step was taken in the cause for reasons hard to discern. However, on the 12th
March, 1960, the petitioner was again galvanised into action and she, by her
solicitor, set down the cause for hearing on the 31st March, 1960. For some
reason again difficult to discern, the cause came before Christian,
Commissioner of Assize and Civil Pleas, as he then was, and was adjourned to
the 10th May, 1960. The record is silent as to what happened on the 10th May,
1960. However, on the 14th June, 1960, the petitioner, again by her solicitor
filed a motion praying for the grant of alimony pendente lite. The application
was this time heard by Gwira, Commissioner of Assize and Civil Pleas, as he
then was, and the petitioner was granted an order for £G20 a month to be paid
by the respondent as from the 1st of July, 1960.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The suit next came on for mention before Apaloo, J., on the 10th
October, 1960, when for the first time Reindorf, holding brief for Amankwatia
for the respondent, pointed out that as the registrar’s certificate had not
been obtained, hearing could not proceed. The court thereupon adjourned hearing
to the 1st December, 1960, and ordered the petitioner to obtain the registrar’s
certificate before that date.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the 21st December, 1960, the respondent, despite the fact that
his answer contained a cross-petition for dissolution of his marriage with the
petitioner, filed by his solicitor a motion praying that the petition be struck
out for non-prosecution, instead of proceeding under the provisions of Order
55, rule 30 and setting down the cause for trial or hearing.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>