AVADALI II AND ANOTHER vs. AVADALI IV [1993]DLSC4709

Date	1993-12-14
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1993]DLSC4709

ADADE JSC

ABBAN JSC

AMUA-SEKYI JSC

WIREDU JSC

BAMFORD-ADDO JSC

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC

AMPIAH JSC

ERIC HOMADI WITH HIM F A BEKOE AND S M AKRON FOR THE APPLICANT

S A X TSEGAH FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1993]DLSC4709
																																						<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" >AVADALI II AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>AVADALI IV<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<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">

[1992-93] 2 G B R 733 – 761&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 14 DECEMBER 1993<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ERIC
HOMADI, WITH HIM F A BEKOE AND S M AKRON, FOR THE 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">

S
A X TSEGAH FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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 1.0pt 0in">

ADADE
JSC, ABBAN JSC, AMUA-SEKYI JSC, WIREDU JSC, BAMFORD-ADDO JSC, HAYFRON-BENJAMIN
JSC, AMPIAH JSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>ADADE
JSC. On 16/11/92, an action was commenced in the High Court, Denu, titled as
follows:<o:p></o:p>“(1) Hlotator Adigbli Avadali II of
Afegame, Head of Anyigbe Clan/Family&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>(2) Togbe Awafiaga Abordor VII,
Principal Member of Anyigbe Clan and Divisional Chief of Anyigbe Afegame<o:p></o:p>versus<o:p></o:p>Plaintiffs<o:p></o:p>Togbe Lugu Avadali IV, alias Awafia
Lugu Ahiaku, Sub-chief of Anyigbe Afevime Adutor<o:p></o:p>Defendant”<o:p></o:p>By
their writ of summons, the plaintiffs sought three reliefs:<o:p></o:p>“(a) A declaration that 1st plaintiff
is the present Head/Hlotator of the whole Anyigbe Clan/Family comprising
Anyigbe Afegame, Anyigbe Afevime and Agbofeme of Anyigbe Clan and is entitled
to manage all the lands and other properties of the Anyigbe Clan/Family.<o:p></o:p>(b) Perpetual and prohibitive
injunction restraining the defendant from posing or claiming to be the
Head/Hlotator of the Anyigbe Clan and dealing with the properties of the clan
in the said false capacity.<o:p></o:p>(c) General damages suffered by
plaintiffs as a result of the false claims of defendant as Head/Hlotator of the
whole Anyigbe Clan.”<o:p></o:p>The
writ was accompanied by a statement of claim running into 15 paragraphs.<o:p></o:p>On
receiving the writ and the statement of claim the defendant, by his solicitor,
entered a conditional appearance, and then moved the court “to strike off the
writ of summons and the statement of claim” on the ground, as stated in
paragraph 4 of his affidavit of 7/12/92:<o:p></o:p>“that though the action has been
cleverly couched in words to sound like a land case, it is not a land case. The
action is purely a chieftaincy matter and this Honourable Court has no
jurisdiction to entertain it.”<o:p></o:p>After
hearing arguments on the motion, the Denu High Court, presided over by O K
Sampson J, on 26/2/93 decided that the matter before him was not a cause or
matter affecting chieftaincy, and accordingly the High Court had jurisdiction
to hear it. He dismissed the motion.<o:p></o:p>From
this ruling the defendant has applied to this court for an order of certiorari
to bring up and quash the said decision of 26/2/93.<o:p></o:p>May
I, at the outset, make a comment on an issue which was drawn across the trail
in these proceedings. In the court below, counsel for the
plaintiffs-respondents made the point several times over that, not having filed
a statement of defence, it was not open to the defendant-applicant to make use
and or take advantage of the contents of any of the several exhibits which he
attached to his affidavit in support of the application both in the court below
and in this court; and further that in the absence of a statement of defence he
could not be heard on a motion to set aside the writ and the statement of
claim. These notions appeared to have found favour in some quarters when the
matter came up for hearing in this court.<o:p></o:p>In
other words, upon entering&nbsp; conditional
appearance a defendant must first file a defence pleading the facts on which he
intends to rely before he can properly move the court to set aside the writ.<o:p></o:p>No
authority was cited for this interesting proposition, and I do not know of any.
Speaking for myself, I have no hesitation in pronouncing this contention
completely erroneous.<o:p></o:p>Order
12 r 24 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 1954 (LN 140A) which
regulates the filing of a conditional appearance (at times referred to as
“appearance under protest”) contains no such requirement.<o:p></o:p>Order
12 rule 24 states:<o:p></o:p>“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>