SAFO-ADU vs. BOAMPONG [1976]DLCA437

Date	1976-02-27
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLCA437

AMISSAH J.A

SOWAH J.A

KINGSLEY-NYINAH J.A.

MMIEH (WITH HIM OWUSU YAW) FOR THE APPELLANT.

JOE REINDORF FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1976]DLCA437
																																						<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" >SAFO-ADU<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;BOAMPONG<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 1 GLR 321<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:
27 FEBRUARY 1976.<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">

MMIEH (WITH HIM OWUSU YAW) FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

JOE REINDORF 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">

AMISSAH, SOWAH AND KINGSLEY-NYINAH
JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SOWAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>Sowah
J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. On 19 November 1975, we reversed the
ruling of the High Court, Kumasi, in which it dismissed the application of the
appellant (hereafter called the defendant) to set aside a ruling that a trial
should proceed in his absence and the judgment obtained in his absence at the
trial where he did not appear and ordered that the case be heard de novo and
that the defendant should pay the costs of the abortive trial.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>We now
proceed to give our reasons for so doing. On 26 February 1970 the respondent
(hereafter called the plaintiff) took out a writ of summons claiming:<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 cost for repairs of house
No. O.O. 32, Odum Street, Kumasi, estimated to be N ¢1,250.00 as under the
agreement made between the plaintiff and the defendant on 1 April 1968.<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">(2) The rent for the said
premises from May 1969 to February [1973], both dates inclusive at N ¢326.00
per month as under the said agreement.<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">(3) Mesne profits.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant entered appearance by his solicitor; thereafter the usual processes
followed. The defendant denied any breaches of the lease and contended that he
gave a valid notice before vacating the premises. Issues were accordingly
joined on the pleadings and in particular, the validity of the notice and,
whether or not the defendant gave vacant possession. After several adjournments
mainly through the default of the defendant and his solicitor, the case was set
down for hearing on 11 October 1972. It could not be heard but there was this
significant note on the judge’s record:<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
defendant is in protective custody and no attempt has been made to serve him.
There is no return of service on his solicitor either. I shall adjourn the
matter for mention on 15 November 1972. The solicitor for defendant to be
notified. The plaintiff may direct service.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Eventually
on 7 June 1973, there appears the following notes in the judge’s record:<o:p></o:p>“Mr.
Obeng for the plaintiff. The defendant absent. No appearance. Court: The last
hearing was 27 March 1973. The record shows that Mr. Pobee held brief for Mr.
Gyimah. No reason is given for the absence of counsel for the defendant. I
propose to proceed with the hearing as the plaintiff’s counsel is anxious to go
on. Mr. Obeng: Applied to amend the original statement of claim in terms of notice
of amendment filed on 27 February 1973. Court: There is return of service on
defence counsel. The application to amend in terms of notice filed on 27
February 1973 granted as prayed.”<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff proceeded to adduce the whole of his evidence and at an adjourned
date, counsel for plaintiff addressed the court.<o:p></o:p><o:p</main>