MUMUNI AND ANOTHER vs. ZAKARIA AND ANOTHER [1989]DLHC2041

Date	1989-11-13
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1989]DLHC2041

BENIN J.

M. MUMUNI FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPLICANTS.

I. MAHAMA FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTS.

<p class="mb-5" id="contentDlCitation"  hidden>[1989]DLHC2041</p>
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes"><a name="_gjdgxs"></a><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">MUMUNI AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">ZAKARIA AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes"><b><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">[HIGH COURT, TAMALE]<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes"><b><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">[1992] 1 GLR 208<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">Date: 13
NOVEMBER 1989</span><b><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p>

</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">COUNSEL</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">M. MUMUNI FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">I. MAHAMA FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENTS.<b><u> <o:p></o:p></u></b></span></p>

</div><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes"><b><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">JUDGMENT OF BENIN J.<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">I consider it relevant to give a brief background history of this
case to enable the present application, the arguments thereon, and the court’s
ruling to be appreciated in full. The plaintiff-respondents (hereinafter called
the plaintiffs) sued out a writ of summons on 17 May 1989 claiming damages
against the defendant-applicants (hereinafter called the defendants) in a
running down matter. The defendants, having been served with the writ, failed
to enter an appearance. A judgment in default of appearance was applied for and
obtained against the defendants who were subsequently served with a notice of
entry of judgment after trial. The plaintiffs made an attempt to go into
execution after which the defendants applied for, and obtained leave to enter
an appearance out of time from this court then presided over by my brother
Okyere J.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">The court, besides dealing with the application for leave to enter
appearance out of time, on its own motion set aside the default judgment and
also ordered the defendants to file their statement of defence on or before 4
October 1989. The plaintiffs then applied to the court to set aside its own
order made suo motu vacating the default judgment and this was allowed on the
ground that being a judgment regularly obtained, the court could not on its own
motion vacate it without an application by the party affected. In the meantime
the defendants did not file their statement of defence within the time allowed
by the court and only did so on 13 October 1989.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">With the court’s order vacating the default judgment itself
vacated, and thereby restoring the default judgment, the defendants moved on
notice to set aside the default judgment and also for an order to defend the
action on the basis of their statement of defence filed on 13 October 1989. The
first part of the application was allowed without much difficulty and the
judgment in default of appearance was set aside with costs to be assessed, and
which I now assess at ¢10,000 and which I hereby order the defendants to pay
the plaintiffs on or before 30 November 1989.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">The second limb of the application was seriously opposed by the
plaintiffs’ counsel on the ground that since the defence was filed in
disobedience to the court’s order it was void and he relied on the case of
United Africa Co. Ltd. v. Krekchi (1951) 13 W.A.C.A. 219. Earlier, counsel for
the defendants had argued that the application before the court was implicitly
asking for an enlargement of time within which to file the statement of defence
and moreover once the defence had been filed the court could not ignore it. He
cited in support the case of Barclays Bank (D.C.O.) v. Heward-Mills, Court of
Appeal, 7 July 1969, unreported; digested in (1969) C.C. 132. Moreover, the
plaintiffs having taken fresh steps within the meaning of Order 70, r. 2 of the
High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), will be deemed to have
waived their right of object. Counsel for the plaintiffs countered this by
saying that Order 70, r.2 of L.N. 140A is only applicable where the party has
defaulted regularly under a rule, and not where the default is in defiance of a
court order. I will return to this argument later on.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">It will seem from the decision in the United Africa Co. Ltd. v.
Krekchi (supra) at 220 that if a defence is filed in disobedience to a court
order it is void. This clearly distinguishes this type of case from those where
the defence is filed out of the time stipulated under the rules of court. If
the defence is filed out of time under the rules of court, the court cannot
ignore it: see Heward-Mills v. Barclays Bank (D.C.O.) [1966] GLR 618 at 620. It
was thus held in Graves v. Terry (1882) 9 Q.B.D. 170 that once a reply was
actually delivered, though out of time, the defendant was not entitled to
judgment in default. But in the instant case, it appears the defence was filed
out of the time appointed by the court itself. So that if the court’s order is
valid then it becomes clear the defence filed is to be ignored altogether.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:
none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:
yes"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif;">Was the court’s order motu fixing time for the defendants to file
a statement of defence valid? I must confess that this point was never
canvassed in the arguments before me. However, I was, in the course of
considering this ruling, compelled to take a second look at the order as it
stood to see whether it was valid and not void. If it was void then the
authority of Mosi v. Bagyina [1963] 1 G.L.R. 337 at 342, S.C. entitled me to
vacate it. As earlier recounted, the application before the court was for leave
to enter an appearance out of time. The defendants were bound to enter
appearance first and thereafter the normal procedures would follow as a matter
of course. Having been granted leave to enter appearance on 26 September 1989,
it meant the defendants had eight days within which to do so, and then they
would be entitled to another fourteen days within which to file their statement
of defence. That meant they had up to 4 October 1989 to enter their appearance
and up to 18 October 1989 to file their statement of defence. The court’s order
limiting them to 4 October 1989 to file their statement of defence meant that
it </main>