NORTEY AND ANOTHER vs. DAMATEY [1973]DLHC2299

Date	1973-11-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2299

QUASHIE-SAM J.

K. AMOFA FOR THE APPELLANTS.

K. ASARE FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1973]DLHC2299
																																						<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">NORTEY AND ANOTHER <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">DAMATEY<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT, KOFORIDUA]<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 31<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:
26 NOVEMBER 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">

K. AMOFA
FOR THE APPELLANTS.<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">

QUASHIE-SAM J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF QUASHIE-SAM J.<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff obtained judgment ex parte against the defendants on 4 October 1972
in the District Court Grade I, Nkawkaw.<o:p></o:p>On 20
December 1972, the defendants applied to have the said judgment set aside on
the ground that they had no notice of the date of hearing and that they only
got to know that the case had been disposed of when formal decree was served on
them. They also on the same date filed another motion for stay of execution on
precisely the same grounds. When the two applications came on for hearing on 22
January 1973, the defendants failed to appear and the two motions were struck
out for want of appearance. The defendants then filed an application to relist
these motions. In his order, the magistrate was of the opinion that no
sufficient cause had been shown for relistment and he dismissed the
application. The defendants then filed a motion for a review of the order
refusing relistment and on 19 March 1973, the court refused to review its
order, observing that there was no merit in the application. It is from this
order that the defendants have appealed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
original ground of appeal was that the learned trial magistrate failed to
exercise his discretion judiciously. Other additional grounds are:<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
learned trial magistrate erred in law by accepting and acting upon the
submissions of the plaintiff-respondent’s counsel based on Order 39 of the
Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A). (2) The learned
trial magistrate erred in law by failing to consider the appellant’s
application under Order 42 of the Courts Ordinance, Cap. 4 (1951 Rev.).”<o:p></o:p>These
grounds were argued together by counsel. The main approach in his argument was
to attempt to draw a fine distinction between Order 39 of the Supreme [High]
Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), and Order 42, r. 1 of Cap. 4,
Sched. II. He submitted that it was the latter rule which was applicable to an
application for a review in the lower court and not Order 39 which was
applicable to the High Court. He argued that if the magistrate had applied the
test in Order 42, r. 1 of Cap. 4 instead of Order 39 as above, he would have
granted the review; that his failure to do so amounted to judicious
indiscretion.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Rule 1 of
Order 39 of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A),
reads:<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) Any
person considering himself aggrieved—<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">(a) by a
judgment or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has
been preferred; or (b) by a judgment or order from which no appeal is allowed;
and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after
the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be
produced by him at the time when the judgment was given or the order made, or
an account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for
any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the judgment given
or order made against him, may apply for a review of the judgment or order to
the Judge who gave judgment or made the order.”<o:p></o:p>