STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION vs. BOAKYIE [1975]DLHC445

Date	1975-12-01
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1975]DLHC445

EDUSEI J.

F. C. KHARSA FOR THE APPLICANT.

S. A. X. TSEGAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1975]DLHC445
																																						<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" >STATE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION <o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;BOAKYIE<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 1 GLR 126<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:
1 DECEMBER 1975.<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">

F. C. KHARSA FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

S. A. X. TSEGAH 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">

EDUSEI J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.<o:p></o:p>On 1
December 1975 this court entered judgment for the plaintiffs against the
defendant under Order 14, r. 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954
(L.N. 140A). On the same day a motion to set aside the judgment was filed by
the defendant. It is not surprising to me that a motion to set aside the
judgment could be filed the same day the judgment was given because my own
recollection of the matter is that immediately after I had entered judgment for
the plaintiffs in the absence of the defendant’s counsel, Mr. Kharsa of Kumasi,
appeared in court and was told of what had happened.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>However,
Mr. Tsegah, counsel for the plaintiffs, has raised a preliminary objection to
the application to set aside the judgment. The substance of his objection is
that a judgment obtained under Order 14, r. 1 cannot be set aside. In effect
counsel is saying that such a judgment is conclusive against the defendant and
it cannot be set aside. He can only appeal if he so desires. Counsel for the
defendant has argued the contrary.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>After
arguments by counsel the matter was adjourned for consideration and Mr. Tsegah
sent me four decided cases of which two, I think, are relevant to the point at
issue. They are Spira v. Spira [1939] 3 All E.R. 924, C.A. and Mansah v.
Kaawuoh [1961] G.L.R. (Pt. II) 777. The English case of Spira v. Spira (supra)
in effect decided that a judgment obtained under Order 14, r. 1 of the rules of
the High Court could not be set aside. It is not a judgment by default as under
Order 27, r. 16. In the local case of Mansah v. Kaawuoh (supra), Djabanor J.,
as he then was, relied on Spira v. Spira and also held that a judgment obtained
by Order 14, r. 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954, could not be
set aside.<o:p></o:p>But do
these two seemingly impregnable authorities conclude the matter against the
defendant? I think not. It is true that there is no provision under Order 14
(which consists of ten rules) permitting judgment thereunder obtained to be set
aside. Nevertheless, Order 74 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954,
provides 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">“Where no
provision is made by these Rules the procedure, practice and forms in force for
the time being in the High Court of Justice in England shall, so far as they
can be conveniently applied, be in force in the Supreme Court of [Ghana].”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
reference to the “Supreme Court” in our rules is now the High Court: see High
Court (Civil Procedure) (Amendment) Rules, 1975 (L.I. 1001). When Spira v.
Spira (supra) was decided in 1939 in England, Order 14 consisted of ten rules
only as our own, and was in identical terms. But since 1962 an additional rule
had been made to the English rules which now number eleven as against our own
ten rules. This rule 11 of Order 14 of the English Supreme Court Rules,
provides 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">“Any
judgment given against a party who does not appear at the hearing of an
application under Rule 1 or Rule 5 may be set aside or varied by the Court on
such terms as it thinks just.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
provision overrules Spira v. Spira (supra). Since there is no such provision as
rule 11 in our own rules, I am permitted by Order 74 of our rules to adopt the
procedure or practice in force in the High Court of Justice in England which
allows a judgment obtained under Order 14 to be set aside und</main>