DORYUMU vs. NANOR-AGBOZO. [1979]DLHC1573

Date	1979-04-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLHC1573

MENSA BOISON J.

DR. EKOW DANIELS FOR THE APPLICANT.

B. E. KWAW-SWANZY FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1979]DLHC1573
																																						<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" >DORYUMU <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>NANOR-AGBOZO.<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 311<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:
26
APRIL 1979<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">

DR. EKOW DANIELS FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

B. E. KWAW-SWANZY 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">

MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>The
defendant by counsel moves the court to have the plaintiff’s writ of summons
struck out as disclosing no cause of action. By that writ the plaintiff claims
for a declaration that the defendant’s election as a council held on 17
November 1978 was void.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendant’s motion follows an entry of conditional appearance or appearance
under protest. That is said to be by virtue of Order 12, r. 24 of the High
Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), which provides:<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">“24. A
defendant before appearing shall be at liberty, without obtaining an order to
enter or entering a conditional appearance, to take out a summons or serve
notice of motion to set aside the service upon him of the writ or of notice of
the writ, or to discharge the order authorising such service.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Mr.
Kwaw-Swanzy for the plaintiff, contests the propriety of the motion. He submits
that the applicant is out of court, since Order 12, r. 24 applies only to
motions before entering appearance albeit conditional or under protest.
Consequently although the applicant purported to enter a conditional
appearance, the effect it is contended, is that the appearance is deemed to be
in unconditional appearance and any objections as taken by the motion may only
be taken as objections in law under Order 25, r. 2.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Dr. Ekow
Daniels, counsel for the applicant, was certain he was not praying in aid any
practice under the English Rules, Order 12, rr. 7 and 8, which Mr. Kwaw-Swanzy
expatiated from the 1967 edition of the English Annual Practice which differed
with his interpretation of Order 12, r. 24. The sidenote to Order 12, r. 24
shows the English equivalent to be Order 12, r. 30. In the English Annual
Practice (1962 ed.), Order 12, r. 30 is stated at p. 198 in all material
particulars as our rule 24 as follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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">“A
defendant before appearing shall be at liberty, without obtaining an order to
enter or entering a conditional appearance, to take out a summons in the
Queen’s Bench Division and in any other Division take out a summons or serve
notice of motion to set aside the service upon him of the writ or of notice of
the writ, or to discharge the order authorising such service.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
commentator’s notes at the same page 198 show that the phrase “before
appearing” means “before entering an unconditional appearance.” I would
paraphrase Order 12, r. 24 thus:<o:p></o:p>That a
defendant may take out a summons or serve notice of motion to set aside the
writ, etc., in any of these three situations:<o:p></o:p>(a) Before
entering an unconditional appearance; or<o:p></o:p>