TRUSTEES OF THE SAVIOUR’S CHURCH OF GHANA vs. ESSIEN [1983]DLHC1005

Date	1983-02-07
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1983]DLHC1005

TWUMASI J.

EBO DAWSON FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

[1983]DLHC1005
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

TRUSTEES OF THE SAVIOUR’S
CHURCH OF GHANA <o:p></o:p>

{HIGH COURT, SEKONDI} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 1 GLR 265<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
7 FEBRUARY 1983
<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

EBO
DAWSON FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF TWUMASI J.<o:p></o:p>The
applicants herein are members of the Board of Trustees of the Saviour’s Church
of Ghana. On 2 February 1983, the trustees caused a writ of summons to be
issued against the defendants who purport to be members of the said church. The
writ seeks for <o:p></o:p>(a) a
declaration that the defendants are not members of the Church; <o:p></o:p>(b)
Declaration of title to the headquarters and the church house situate and lying
at Essikado Mpeasem on the Sekondi - Cape Coast road; (c) ¢50,000 damages for
trespass; and (d) perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their
agents, etc. from interfering with the use by the plaintiffs of the said
headquarters and church house of the Saviour’s Church. The applicants
simultaneously filed a motion ex parte under Order 52, r. 3 of the High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), praying for:<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">“an order
of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, etc, from
interfering with the plaintiffs’ use of the church and headquarters at Essikado
Mpeasem for running of the church and the peaceful worship by members of the
church and also from operating the plaintiffs’ bank account, etc., and for any
order or orders as this court may deem fit.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
motion was fixed for hearing on 4 February 1983. On that day when the motion
was called the writ had not been served on the defendants and consequently no
appearance had been entered. The question was whether the ex parte motion was
valid and the relief sought obtainable under such circumstances. This called
for the construction of Order 52, r. 3 aforesaid. For the purpose of maximum
clarity, I would reproduce rule 2 along with rule 3:<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. No
motion or application for a rule nisi or order to show cause shall hereafter be
made in any action, or <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">(a) To
set aside, remit, or enforce an award, or <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">(b) For
attachment, or<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">&nbsp;(c) Against a sheriff to pay money levied
under an execution. 3. Except where according to the practice now existing any
order or rule might be made absolute ex parte in the first instance, and except
where notwithstanding rule 2 a motion or application may be made for an order
to show cause only, no motion shall be made without previous notice to the
parties affected thereby. But the Court or a Judge, if satisfied that the delay
caused by proceeding in the ordinary way would or might entail irreparable or
serious mischief, may make any order ex parte upon such terms as to costs or
otherwise, and subject to such undertaking, if any, as the Court or a Judge may
think just; and any party affected by such order may move to set it aside.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In Order
52, r. 2 the controlling order is the rule nisi or order nisi. Where for
instance a number of defendants have been sued in one action and the plaintiff
files a motion for an interlocutory order which affects some but not all the
defendants the court may make a rule or order nisi binding on all the
defendants on the condition that those not interested in the order and for that
reason were not served with notice of the motion may later on if they so wish
apply to the court upon being served to be allowed to raise any objection they might
have to the rule or order nisi: see Wilson v. Church (1879) 11 Ch.D.</main>