REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, KOFORIDUA AND ANOTHER; EX PARTE OHENE [1995]DLSC606

Date	1995-06-06
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1995]DLSC606

ADADE JSC

AMUA-SEKYI JSC

AIKINS JSC

EDWARD WIREDU JSC

CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC

KWAKU ANSA-ASARE FOR THE APPLICANT.

JAMES AHENKORAH (HOLDING BRIEF FOR D Y OSEI) FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY.

[1995]DLSC606
																																						<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">REPUBLIC<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">HIGH COURT, KOFORIDUA AND ANOTHER; EX PARTE OHENE<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1995-96] GLR 1<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">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWAKU ANSA-ASARE 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">

JAMES AHENKORAH (HOLDING BRIEF
FOR D Y OSEI) FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY. <o:p></o:p>

ADADE, AMUA-SEKYI, AIKINS,
EDWARD WIREDU AND CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JJSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC.<o:p></o:p>The applicant herein, Mr Kwamina Ohene, prays this court for an
order of certiorari “to quash the orders of the High Court, Koforidua contained
in the judgment. . . dated 28 March 1994.”<o:p></o:p>The matters giving rise to this application are that the applicant
and one Kwabena Atta were sued at the High Court, Koforidua by a man named
Samuel Kwame Owusu who described himself as suing “for himself and on behalf of
his family of Kankan” for certain reliefs which are not necessary to set down
in this application. When the writ of summons was served on Kwabena Atta,
described in the writ as the first defendant, he consulted his solicitors and
instructed them to enter appearance on his behalf. The solicitors, it appears,
without ascertaining whether the applicant, described in the writ as the second
defendant, had been served with a summons and wished to retain them,
erroneously entered appearance for both defendants. As stated above, the
applicant had not, at the time that the solicitors purported to enter
appearance for him, been served with his copy of the writ of summons. Besides,
the applicant did not even know the solicitors for the first defendant (Kwabena
Atta). Therefore when the applicant was subsequently served with this copy of
the writ of summons he also consulted his own solicitors and instructed them to
enter appearance on his behalf.<o:p></o:p>If the averments contained in the affidavit of Mr Samuel Morrris
Kotei, Deputy Chief Registrar of the High Court, Koforidua are correct then
“they on the 7th day of December 1993, entered absolute appearance through
Adjubi Chambers” then again “on or about 31 January 1994 Hencil Chambers
purported to enter an appearance on behalf of the second defendant in respect
of whom there had already been filed an entry of appearance.” It appears that
the applicant’s solicitors much later in the day filed a defence to the claim.<o:p></o:p>It seems that in spite of the defence being on file, the plaintiff
moved for judgment in default of defence. Upon the matter coming before the
learned High Court judge on 8 March 1994, the registrar again avers in his
affidavit 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">“One Onny Esq of Hencil Chambers indicated that he had filed a
defence though belated but the court indicated that in view of the prior
appearance entered by some other counsel in keeping with rules of court it will
not have regard to the defence.”<o:p></o:p>(The emphasis is mine.) The court accordingly gave interlocutory
judgment for the plaintiff and proceeded to assess damages. Final judgment was
delivered on 28 March 1994.<o:p></o:p>In the present application, three grounds have been stated upon
which this court is invited to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction and quash
the judgment and orders of the High Court, Koforidua, These are:<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">“(i) That the proceedings of the High Court, Koforidua in so far
as they affected the applicant were irregular because the judge held the applicant
to be bound by the acts of a solicitor who had not been instructed by the
applicant. <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">(ii) That the learned judge erred when he refused to hear the
applicant’s solicitors on 8 March 1994, purely on the ground that another
solicitors, Nana Asibey-Yeboah, had entered appearance for both defendants when
that in fact was not borne out by the records, thus violating the rules of
natural justice. <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">(iii) That by refusing to hear the applicant the learned trial
judge disabled the applicant from prosecuting his defence and thereby resulting
in a substantial miscarriage of justice.”<o:p></o:p>