DIEGO AND SONS vs. OSEI [1974]DLHC2273

Date	1974-01-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1974]DLHC2273

QUASHIE-SAM J.

B.K. SENKYERE FOR THE APPELLANTS.

A. BADU FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1974]DLHC2273
																																						<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">DIEGO AND SONS <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">OSEI <o:p></o:p>[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 277<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:
21 JANUARY 1974.<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">

B.K.
SENKYERE 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
appellants herein have brought this appeal against the judgment of the District
Court Grade I, Akwatia dated 9 December 1970 in which they lost to the
respondent on his claim for ¢ 607.50 as compensation for injury he received in
the course of his employment with the appellants. The action was brought under
the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1963 (Act 174), claiming compensation.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 8
September 1969, and at the instance of the respondent the District Court Grade
I, Akwatia, issued out a notice addressed to the appellants 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">“Take
notice that, if you intend to oppose the application, of which a copy is served
upon you herewith, you must lodge with me, within twenty-one days after the
service of this notice upon you, a written answer thereto containing a concise
statement of the extent and grounds of your opposition. And further take notice
that the above case has been set down for hearing on Wednesday, the 17th day of
September, 1969, at 8.30 a.m., or so soon thereafter as the applicant can be
heard, and the District Court Grade I at Akwatia has been fixed as the time and
place for the hearing of the application, and that in default of your lodging
with me within the time aforesaid a written answer as herein required, or of
your appearing at the said time and place fixed for the hearing of the
application, such order may be made as the court deems just and expedient.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 9
December 1970 when the appellants did not appear, the court proceeded to give
an ex parte judgment against them. It is very concise and I reproduce it in
full for convenience.<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">“The
plaintiff claims the sum of ¢ 607.50 under the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
1963, in respect of injury sustained in the course of employment on 21 March
1968. The defendant has been served with the relevant notice of the claim but
has filed no paper to oppose it. He is therefore deemed to have no defence to
the claim. Judgment is therefore given for the plaintiff to ¢ recover from the
defendants the sum of N 607.50 with N ¢ 20.00 costs.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
from this judgment that this appeal is brought. Originally it was based on one
ground only, namely, that the judgment was against the weight of evidence; on
18 October 1971 additional grounds of appeal were filed 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. (a)
The judgment was based on no evidence in that no evidence was adduced in
support of the claim. <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">(b) The
record of proceedings is incomplete and therefore irregular. <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">(c) The
learned district magistrate erred in law by not following the rules of court.”<o:p></o:p>