AMOAH AND ANOTHER vs. BAFFOE [1976]DLHC350

Date	1976-04-06
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLHC350

QUASHIE-SAM J.

ANTHONY FORSON FOR THE APPELLANTS.

DR. TACKIE-OTOO FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1976]DLHC350
																																						<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" >AMOAH AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>BAFFOE<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, SEKONDI]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 2 GLR 246<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:
6 APRIL 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">

ANTHONY FORSON FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

DR. TACKIE-OTOO 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">

QUASHIE-SAM J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF QUASHIE-SAM J.<o:p></o:p>In this
appeal from the ruling of the District Court Grade II, Tarkwa, dated 27
November 1974, disallowing a motion for a review of the court’s judgment dated
7 August 1974, counsel for the respondent has in this court raised a
preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the lower court in entertaining
the said motion itself.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
background of the matter is that on 6 August 1974, the plaintiff gave evidence
in an action in which he claimed ¢1,000.00 damages jointly and severally from
the defendants; against the first defendant for seduction of his daughter and
against the second defendant as a person in loco parentis to the first
defendant. This was in the absence of the defendants, who had notice of the
hearing. Further hearing was adjourned to the next day, and on that day, again
in the absence of both defendants, the plaintiff’s daughter who was the victim
of the alleged seduction gave evidence after which the court gave judgment in
absentia 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">“Having
listened to the plaintiff and his witness this court gives judgment in absentia
against the defendants. The second defendant by custom is to have performed the
customary rite for his son, since he failed, he is liable for the claim.
Exemplary damages award allowed: ¢500.00. Cost assessed at ¢20.00=¢520.00.<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">First
defendant is to maintain the plaintiff’s first witness till her delivery, and
if after delivery the first defendant cannot marry the plaintiff’s first
witness, he could take the necessary customary steps and give her away to marry
any one she chooses.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
second defendant on 3 October 1974, then filed a motion supported with an
affidavit for a review of that judgment delivered on 7 August 1974, which
application the court dismissed on 27 November 1974 and it is against that
decision that this appeal is brought.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
ruling, as I began, is concerned with the preliminary objection raised by the
respondent’s counsel, who has submitted that under the rules for review the
application should not have been entertained by the lower court. As pointed out
by counsel in his objection, the relevant rule is rule 2 of Order 42 of the
Second Schedule to the Courts Ordinance, Cap. 4 (1951 Rev.), which provides
that:<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. Any
application for review of judgment must be made not later than fourteen days
after such judgment. After the expiration of fourteen days an application for
review shall not be admitted, except by special leave of the Court, on such
terms as seem just.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this
instance, the judgment to be reviewed was given on 7 August 1974. The
application for review was filed on 3 October 1974, after the statutory period
of fourteen days had expired. On the record, there was no special leave of the
court to bring the application out of time. Counsel for the respondent
therefore submitted that the application being brought out of time and without
special leave as provided under the rule, it should have been dismissed as the
court had no jurisdiction to entertain it after the expiration of fourteen days
from the date of the judgment.<o:p></o:p>