ADUNNA AND OTHERS vs. MFUM [1970]DLHC2070

Date	1970-12-08
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1970]DLHC2070

TAYLOR J.

KINGSLEY ABEYIE FOR THE APPELLANTS.

S. D. A. ADDAI FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1970]DLHC2070
																																						<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" >ADUNNA AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>MFUM <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
KUMASI]<o:p></o:p>&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;&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;[1971] 1 GLR 89<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
8 DECEMBER 1970.<o:p></o:p>

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

KINGSLEY
ABEYIE FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

S. D. A.
ADDAI FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

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

TAYLOR J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff by her solicitor sued the defendants claiming N¢300.00 damages
against the defendants as endorsed on her writ of summons:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“for the
unlawful destruction of the plaintiff’s cocoa pods and food stuffs by the
defendants’ sheep at the plaintiff’s cocoa farm at Apemso on a land commonly
known and called ‘Apemso-Mfikyire’ on the Asokore stool land bounded by the
properties of Yeboah and Kwasi Manu.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
application for the writ of summons at the district court grade II was headed
“Under undefended list.” It was an application apparently made under Order 2,
r. 9 of the Schedule II to Courts Ordinance, Cap. 4 (1951 Rev.), the rules
governing civil procedure in the district courts. It was supported by an affidavit
setting forth the grounds upon which the claim was based and it complied with
the requirements of the said Order 2, r. 9 which reads as follows: [His
lordship here read the provisions of Order 2, r. 9 as set out in the headnote
and continued:]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The procedure
to be adopted by a defendant who intends to defend is fully set out in Order 2,
r. 11 of the said Schedule II and is as follows: [His lordship here read the
provisions of Order 2, r. II as set out in the headnote and continued:]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It seems
to me that the district magistrate has misconceived and misapplied the
provisions of Order 2, r. 9 (supra). That rule is only applicable in cases
where the plaintiff’s application is in respect of a claim to recover (1) a
debt, or (2) a liquidated money demand.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>If the
claim does not fall within (1) or (2) then it is not a proper claim to be
placed on the undefended list. The claim in this case is clearly not a debt so
it does not fall within (1); it is also not a liquidated money demand for a
money demand is said to be liquidated when it is fixed or ascertained. The
words debt or liquidated demand do not extend to unliquidated damages whether
in tort or in contract even though the amount of such damages be named as a
definite figure: see Knight v. Abott, Page &amp; Co. (1882) 10 Q.B.D. 11.<o:p></o:p>Indeed it
seems that the sum of N¢300.00 claimed by the plaintiff in her writ is clearly
an unliquidated demand and the district magistrate did recognise it as such. In
his ruling he said of this claim:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“The
second issue as to whether N ¢300.00 damages is a liquidated claim can be
simply answered that on the facts it could not be liquidated. That second issue
is then ruled in favour of the defendant for its un</main>