MICAH vs. BRUCE [1970]DLHC2132

Date	1970-12-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1970]DLHC2132

TAYLOR J.

K. ABEYIE FOR THE APPELLANT.

MRS. OPOKU FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1970]DLHC2132
																																						<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" >MICAH <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>BRUCE<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 153<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:
14 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">

K. ABEYIE
FOR THE APPELLANT.<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
respondent (who was the plaintiff in the district court action) in this case
sued the appellant in the district court grade I on 6 January 1970 claiming
N¢653.40 being arrears of rent from January 1968 up to December 1969 and an order
of the court ejecting the appellant from the premises which he had apparently
rented to her. The writ of summons was served on the appellant on 16 January
1970 and the return day was 21 January 1970. The summons served was accompanied
by an affidavit setting out the particulars of the demand and this clearly gave
the appellant reasonably sufficient information as to the details of the
respondent’s claim, in accordance with Order 5, r. 1 of the Second Schedule to
the Courts Ordinance, Cap. 4 (1959 Rev.), the rules governing civil procedure
in the district courts.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the
next day after receiving the summons and the particulars aforesaid the
appellant filed an affidavit denying the claim. It is not clear why this was
done except perhaps that having received an affidavit from the respondent the
appellant must have thought she was obliged to file one.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the
return day, 21 January 1970, the hearing was by the agreement of the parties
adjourned to 29 January 1970. Only the appellant was represented by counsel. On
the adjourned date, 29 January 1970, counsel for the appellant asked for a
further adjournment to study the case and although the respondent appeared in
person, he unsuccessfully resisted the application and the hearing was again
adjourned to 4 February 1970. N¢4.00 costs were awarded against the appellant.<o:p></o:p>On 2
February 1970 two days before the adjourned date the appellant filed what was
headed, “an amended statement of defence,” in which she purported to answer the
averments contained in the respondent’s affidavit of 6 January 1970. The record
does not show any statement of claim apart from the particulars of claim in the
writ and there was also no statement of defence so that in this so-called
amended statement of defence, the affidavit of the appellant is clearly wrongly
described as a statement of defence. It does not seem to me that it was
necessary for the appellant to file an affidavit or indeed a so-called
statement of defence. It is not clear why the appellant, who was represented by
counsel, adopted this procedure. In my view the procedure adopted by the
appellant and acquiesced in by the district magistrate is rather very
irregular. The hearing of suits in the district courts is summary unless the
district magistrate directs to the contrary and Order 25, r. 1 of the Second
Schedule shows clearly as appears hereunder that the parties, unless the court
otherwise directs, do not file pleadings on their own initiative. The said
Order 25, r. 1 provides:<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">&nbsp;“1. Suits shall ordinarily be heard and determined
in a summary manner without pleadings; but, where it appears to the Court (for
reasons recorded in the minutes) that the nature and circumstances of any case
render it expedient in the interests of justice to do so, the Court may order
the plaintiff to file a written statement of his claim (called the petition),
and may likewise order the defendant to file a written answer or statement of
his defence. The filing of a petition shall not necessarily involve, unless the
Court so directs, that an answer shall also be filed. The order may be made at
any stage of a suit, either before or at the hearing.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
so-called amended statement of claim the appellant in paragraph (12) set up a
counterclaim as follows:<o:p></o:p>