NYARKO AND OTHERS vs. LUTTERODT [1985]DLCA951

Date	1985-05-22
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1985]DLCA951

ADADE J.S.C

EDUSEI JA

OSEI-HWERE J.A.

E. D. KOM FOR THE APPLICANTS.

NII AMARTEI FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1985]DLCA951
																																						<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">

NYARKO AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>

{COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 1 GLR 437<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
22 APRIL 1985<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">

E.
D. KOM FOR THE APPLICANTS. <o:p></o:p>

NII
AMARTEI 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">

ADADE J.S.C., EDUSEI AND OSEI-HWERE JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ADADE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Adade
J.S.C. delivered the ruling of the court. Civil motion 14/85 is an application
to relist an appeal which was struck out by this court on 7 November 1983.
Civil motion 15/85 is an application for a stay of execution of the High Court
judgment dated 18 February 1982 from which the appeal was lodged. Both
applications are made by the defendant-appellants. The two applications were
argued together.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 7
November 1983 this court (coram Apaloo C.J., Edward Wiredu and Osei-Hwere
JJ.A.) struck out, for want of prosecution, an appeal by the defendants against
a judgment of the High Court, Accra dated 18 February 1982. None of the three
appellants (two defendants and co-defendant) was in court on that day. The
second defendant says she had travelled to Nigeria. It seems that the first
defendant and the co-defendant are, so to speak, sleeping partners; they are
not served with process. However, the second defendant claims to have authority
from them to act on their behalf.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On the
application of the defendants the appeal struck out on 7 November 1983 was
relisted by this court on 7 January 1985 in circumstances which clearly showed
that the plaintiff was not served with the motion paper. We do not here make
any pronouncement on whether service on a respondent is demanded by the rules
of court and therefore obligatory. We do know that in practice the court has
always tried to ensure that the respondent has notice of the application, for
good reason.<o:p></o:p>On
becoming aware of the relistment, the plaintiff moved the court, on notice, to
set it aside. This the court did on 5 February 1985. In the process, the
striking out order of 7 November 1983 was restored, thus, for the time being at
least, putting paid to the appeal.<o:p></o:p>The
defendants have now applied again to relist the appeal, to be heard on the
merits. The plaintiff sued the defendants 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">(a) Damages for trespass on to
the plaintiff’s land, plot G 131, Dansoman, Accra, and<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) Perpetual injunction.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(The
emphasis is mine.) The suit related to a vacant plot of land. The judgment of
the High Court, however, affected not just land, but also a “house then built
on it...” The defendants contend that they put up this house. The plaintiff
does not deny this, but he says that the defendants are not entitled to
sympathy or to any protection at all because of their conduct. In paragraph 4
of the plaintiff‘s attorney’s affidavit filed on 15 February 1985, he says
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">“...the
defendants erected the building in spite of repeated protests and warnings from
me, and what is more serious the defendants erected their building in defiance
of the court order of interim injunction restraining them from building on the
land.” Accordingly, he says in paragraph 5 that “the defendants built at their
own risk.”<o:p></o:p>