KWAMI vs. AMUSAH [1973]DLHC2292

Date	1973-12-17
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2292

EDWARD WIREDU J.

SAMPSON FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

AGBESI FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1973]DLHC2292
																																						<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:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">KWAMI <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:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">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:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:Times;color:#548DD4;mso-themecolor:text2;mso-themetint:
153">&nbsp;AMUSAH<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, CAPE COAST]<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;[1974] 1 GLR 71<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:
17 DECEMBER 1973.<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">

SAMPSON
FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU J.<o:p></o:p>On 5 June
1973, the plaintiff-respondent to this appeal (hereafter referred to simply as
the plaintiff) caused to be issued out of the Swedru District Court Grade II a
summons against the defendants claiming ¢850 damages. The present appeal was
brought by the first defendant. The nature of the plaintiff’s claim is rather a
strange one and runs through some six paragraphs as follows:<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">“(1) The
plaintiff is the father of Miss Rose Amusah of Agona Kwanyarku to whom the
first defendant in accordance with Agona native custom paid and performed the
marriage since eight years ago. <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">(2) That
the first defendant had stayed with the said Rose Amusah as wife and has had
two children with her. <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">(3) On
Saturday 17 February 1973, George Kwami and B. K. Kwadzo (both defendants
herein) came to plaintiff’s house at Kwanyarku to divorce Rose Amusah with two
bottles rum (schnapps and Gordons) without prior knowledge of neither Rose
Amusah nor plaintiff and also did not assign reasons for such divorcement. <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">(4) As
such the first defendant agreed to come together with his wife Rose Amusah to
plaintiff at Kwanyarku on 11 March 1973 to settle any misunderstanding between
them. (5) The defendants refused by a letter dated 7 March 1973 to return with
the wife on 11 March 1973 as promised. <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">(6) This
act by the defendants constitutes disrespect, waste of time and deceit on
plaintiff’s person as father-in-law in accordance with the Agona customary
marriage and therefore claims damages of eight hundred and fifty cedis
(¢850.00) from defendants for such disrespect, deceit and waste of time.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The court
notes for 22 June 1973 show that the second defendant had not been served. The
plea of the first defendant however was taken. He pleaded not liable to the plaintiff’s
claim. The proceedings of that day further show that a submission was made on
behalf of the defendant to strike out the plaintiff’s action as being vexatious
and frivolous. It was further contended that the plaintiff’s claim should not
be entertained as it was intended to bring the administration of justice into
disrepute. Counsel further contended that to entertain such an action would be
to encourage an abuse of the court’s process.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The trial
magistrate in his ruling did not appear to have considered the legal
submissions made on behalf of the defendant. He overruled same as follows: “The
first defendant to comply with Order 2, r. 9 by giving notice of his intention
to contest the suit to attach thereto affidavit stating the grounds of his defence.
The counsel’s submission is overruled. Suit adjourned to Friday, 6 July 1973,
for hearing.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>