FOFIE vs. POMAA AND OTHERS [1974]DLHC11041

Date	1974-03-15
Suit No.	[1974] 2 GLR 6
Citation No.	[1974]DLHC11041

OSEI-HWERE J.

OPPONG FOR THE APPLICANT.

KUMI FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1974]DLHC11041
																																						<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" ><div class="WordSection1">

FOFIE<o:p></o:p>

vs.<o:p></o:p>

POMAA AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>

[HIGH COURT,
SUNYANI]<o:p></o:p>

[1974] 2 GLR 6 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE:
15 MARCH 1974<o:p></o:p>

</div>

<h2 style="margin-left:0cm;text-align:justify">COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p></h2>

OPPONG FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

KUMI FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>

CORAM:<o:p></o:p>

OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p>

</div>

<h2 style="margin-left:0cm;text-align:justify">JUDGMENT OF OSEI-HWERE J.<o:p></o:p></h2>

“(a) An
order of the court upon the defendant to pay ¢20.00 each month to the first
plaintiff for the maintenance of the
second and third plaintiffs who are infant daughters of the defendant until
they finish school or reach the age
of sixteen years;<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-top:4.2pt;margin-right:5.85pt;
margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:61.65pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-25.9pt;
line-height:105%;mso-list:l0 level2 lfo1;tab-stops:61.65pt">(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
An order of the court upon the defendant to
pay to the first plaintiff the sum of ¢5,000.00 representing expenses incurred by her over the past six
and half years in respect of the second and third plaintiffs towards
their living maintenance and subsistence; and<o:p></o:p>

(c)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Mesne profit.”<o:p></o:p>

The
writ and the accompanying statement of claim were served on the defendant on 28
November 1973 according to the
affidavit sworn to by the serving bailiff. The defendant failed to enter an
appearance and on 11 December 1973
the plaintiff filed a motion ex parte, and as stated in the motion, “for orders
to enter both final and
interlocutory judgments against the defendant.” The plaintiffs managed to get
the motion listed for hearing the
very day it was filed and it was indeed placed before the court and argued that
same day by their counsel. Counsel
asked for final judgment and whereupon the court proceeded and entered judgment for the plaintiffs in the sum of
¢5,000.00 being expenses incurred by the first plaintiff in respect of the second and third plaintiffs
towards their living maintenance and subsistence; and it was further ordered that the defendant do pay to the
first plaintiff ¢20.00 a month for the maintenance of the second and third plaintiffs until they attained
the age of sixteen years. Costs of ¢100.00 were awarded in addition inclusive
of outlays.<o:p></o:p>

No
sooner had they obtained their judgment than they caused fi. fa. to issue the
very next day against the contents of
the goods in the defendant’s store as well as his personal effects and his
motor-cycle. On sensing the awe and
potency of the law the defendant now, apparently too late, entered his
appearance on 18 December and his solicitor gave notice to
the same effect. His solicitor, on that same date, ex abundanti cautela undoubtedly, also filed a motion on notice for leave to enter appearance on behalf of the
defendant. The notice which was opposed by the plaintiffs, finally came to be
heard on 22 January 1974 and the
application for leave to enter an appearance was allowed. Thereafter the
defendant moved the court to set
aside the judgment entered in favour of the plaintiffs and the instant ruling
pertains to that motion.<o:p></o:p>

&nbsp;

</main>