OMABOE vs. KWAME [1977]DLCA11015

Date	1977-11-08
Suit No.	[1978] GLR 122
Citation No.	[1977]DLCA11015

APALOO C.J.

ARCHER JA

KINGSLEY-NYINAH JA

PETER ADJETEY FOR THE APPELLANT.

N. KUDJAWU FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1977]DLCA11015
																																						<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" >OMABOE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KWAME<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

[1978] GLR 122
&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE:
8 NOVEMBER 1977<o:p></o:p>

</div><h2 style="margin-left:0cm">COUNSEL<o:p></o:p></h2>PETER ADJETEY
FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

N. KUDJAWU
FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

APALOO C.J., ARCHER
JA, KINGSLEY-NYINAH JA<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;<h2 style="margin-left:0cm">JUDGMENT OF APALOO C.J.<o:p></o:p></h2>Apaloo C.J. delivered
the judgment of the court. On 19 June 1975, the High Court entered judgment in favour of the respondent for title to a piece of land and granted
her other ancillary
reliefs. Before doing so,
the respondent had led evidence of her title to the land and a surveyor who was
appointed by the court to view and
make a plan of the land had given evidence and produced that plan in evidence.
Although the appellant was himself in
court, his counsel was absent. He was out of the country, apparently on a government delegation. He wrote to the court requesting adjournment to a named date. The judge
declined to accede to that request and said no sufficient grounds
existed for it. Order 36, r. 19 of the High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), gives him a discretion to adjourn a
trial if, in his opinion, the
interests of justice required this. In this suit, the judge thought the
interests of justice were against
this course. As the appellant was himself in court, he was given an opportunity
to present to the court his side of the case. He said he could
not do so.<o:p></o:p>Shortly
after the entry of judgment, the appellant, by his counsel applied to have this
judgment set aside and for an order
“restoring the said action to the cause list for hearing and determination on
its merits.” The rules of court expressly permit the setting aside of a judgment where one of the parties was absent and the court is given a discretion to
do so on such terms as it deems fit. In this case, the appellant was present in court and the judgment against
him was pronounced in his presence when he declined to lead evidence
to rebut at least the prima facie
case of title made by the respondent. So he could not bring himself within the ambit of rule 18 of Order 36 which provides
that:<o:p></o:p>“Any verdict or judgment obtained
where one party does not appear at the trial may be </span</main>