BRAMSCO FOOD MARKETING AND SUPPLY CO. vs. MOHAMADU [1973]DLHC2369

Date	1973-03-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2369

MENSA BOISON J.

J. E. C. LUTTERODT FOR THE APPELLANTS.

WILLIAM PREMPEH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1973]DLHC2369
																																						<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" >BRAMSCO FOOD MARKETING AND SUPPLY CO.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>MOHAMADU <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;[1973]
2 GLR 4<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
26 MARCH 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">

J. E. C. LUTTERODT FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

WILLIAM PREMPEH 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">

MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MENSA BOISON, J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an appeal against the decision of Michael Adzovie, Esq., District Magistrate
Grade I, sitting at Kumasi. By that decision dated 30 December 1969 he refused
to set aside a judgment entered for the plaintiff for a claim of ¢592.00 in
debt. The writ of summons was placed on the “undefended list” in accordance
with the Courts Ordinance, Cap. 4 (1951 Rev.), Sched. II, Order 2, r. 9
(hereafter to be referred to simply as the Rules). Service of summons was
eventually effected on the defendants by substituted service.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>When the
action came on for hearing on 18 November 1969 the parties were absent and the
action was struck out for want of prosecution. On 5 December 1969 by a motion ex
parte the plaintiff restored the case to the list; and at the same time moved
for judgment, which was duly entered. The minutes of the court were 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">“By
court: Application is granted. Let case be relisted. At this stage counsel
moves court for judgment since case has been placed on the undefended list.
Service has already been effected on defendants by substitution. By court: I
enter judgment for plaintiff in the sum of ¢592.00. I award ¢50.00 costs.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendants’ subsequent application to have this judgment set aside and to be
given leave to defend failed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first
ground against the decision is that assuming the substituted service was right,
still having struck out the action for want of prosecution on the hearing date,
the application to relist ought to have been by notice. In reply counsel for
the plaintiff has submitted that having served the writ by substituted service,
to which the defendants had not filed a notice and affidavit to defend, it was
correct to have applied for the relistment of the case ex parte. Counsel finds
support, as he later communicated to the court after arguments, in Order 27, r.
8 of the Rules. I am unable to agree that this rule answers the point. The rule
provides:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On a
motion ex parte the party moving shall apply for either an immediate absolute
order of the Court, in the terms of the motion paper, on his own showing and
evidence, or an order on the party to appear on a certain day and show cause
why an order should not be made in terms of the motion paper.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I think
this rule does no more than state the nature of the order to be obtained by an
ex parte motion. There is nothing to show that an application to relist where
service had been effected by substituted service should be ex parte .<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>