WARD-BREW vs. GHANA BAR ASSOCIATION (NO. 2) [1991]DLHC862

Date	1991-04-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1991]DLHC862

OMARI-SASU J.

THOMAS WARD-BREW FOR HIMSELF THE PLAINTIFF-APPLICANT.

R. KAKRABA-QUARSHIE FOR NANA AKUFO-ADDO FOR THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTS.

[1991]DLHC862
																																						<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: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">WARD-BREW<o:p></o:p><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 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">GHANA BAR ASSOCIATION (NO. 2)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1993-94] 2 GLR 518<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">

<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">Date: 29 APRIL
1991<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>THOMAS WARD-BREW FOR HIMSELF, THE PLAINTIFF-APPLICANT.<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">

R. KAKRABA-QUARSHIE FOR NANA AKUFO-ADDO FOR THE
DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTS. <o:p></o:p>

OMARI-SASU J. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF OMARI-SASU J.<o:p></o:p>This is an interlocutory application on notice by the
plaintiff-applicant (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) for summary
judgment against the defendant-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the
respondents) on the ground that the respondents have no defence to the
applicant’s claim.<o:p></o:p>It must be observed that on 11 December 1989 the applicant issued
out a writ of summons and a statement of claim against the respondents who
entered a conditional appearance to the writ on 29 December 1989, and 24
January 1990, respectively. Subsequently, the respondents filed an
interlocutory application in this court to seek the striking out of the
applicant’s writ and statement of claim on the allegation that the action was vexatious
and an abuse of the legal process of the court. In time, this application was
heard and, by a ruling read on 20 August 1990: see Ghana Bar Association v
Ward-Brew [1993-94] 2 GLR 509, this court refused to strike out the applicant’s
writ and statement of claim and ordered the respondents to defend the action.
Up to the time of writing this ruling the case docket shows that the
respondents have filed no statement of defence.<o:p></o:p>Learned counsel for the respondents, at the time he was replying
to the present application, informed the court that the respondents had filed
no defence because they were dissatisfied with the court’s ruling in Ghana Bar
Association v Ward-Brew (supra) and had appealed against same to the Court of
Appeal. Further, he indicated that they had filed another process praying this
court to stay any further hearing of any interlocutory applications in the
matter until the appeal in the Court of Appeal had been heard. This court did
not accede to this request and ruled that the decision in Ghana Bar Association
v Ward-Brew (supra) was valid until it had been set aside and in the interim
the parties herein were to respect it. It was further ruled that all pending
interlocutory applications were to be heard in the order in which they had been
filed.<o:p></o:p>Learned counsel for the respondents in dealing with the merits of
the present application said it was defective and incompetent since Order 14 of
the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (LN 140A) as amended by the High
Court (Civil Procedure) (Amendment) (No. 2) Rules, 1977 (LI 1129) deals with
only liquidated damages which is not what the present applicant wants.<o:p></o:p>For the avoidance of doubt, I propose to cite some of the relevant
provisions of Order 14 of LI 1129 to ascertain what the order is meant for.
Order 14, r 1 of LI 1129 reads, inter alia, as follows:<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">“1. Where in an action begun by writ a defendant has been served
with a statement of claim and has entered an appearance, the plaintiff may
apply to the Court for judgment against him on the ground that he has no
defence to a claim included in the writ, or to a particular part of such a
claim . . .”<o:p></o:p>And Order 14, r 13 of LI 1129 also states:<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">“13. Summary judgment shall not be given under this Order in
respect of—<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo4;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a probate or maritime action; <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.75in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo4;
border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <</main>