ALBERT ADJEI BOATENG & ANOR. vs. KELVIN KWASI DWAMENA [2002]DLHC7386

Date	2002-12-20
Suit No.	SUIT NO. L. 304/02
Citation No.	[2002]DLHC7386

HIS LORDSHIP YAW APPAU J.

NANCY AMPOFO MS. FOR PLAINTIFFS

NO REPRESENTATION FOR DEFENDANT.

[2002]DLHC7386
																																						<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" >ALBERT ADJEI BOATENG &amp; ANOR.<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KELVIN KWASI DWAMENA<o:p></o:p>[HIGH 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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">SUIT
NO. L. 304/02&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; &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: 20TH DECEMBER, 2002<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>NANCY
AMPOFO, MS. FOR PLAINTIFFS <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">

NO REPRESENTATION FOR DEFENDANT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>Plaintiffs
in the above-mentioned suit were claiming from defendant five main reliefs,
viz; <o:p></o:p>a)
Declaration of title to the plot of land with a building thereon as described
on the endorsement, <o:p></o:p>b)
An order directing defendant to execute to plaintiffs a deed of assignment of
his remaining interest in the said property, <o:p></o:p>c)
A refund of the sum of ¢89,000,000.00 to plaintiff, being money plaintiff paid
to the SSB Bank Ltd. to redeem the said property from a mortgage, <o:p></o:p>d)
General damages for fraudulent representation, and <o:p></o:p>e)
Interest on the sums claimed under reliefs ‘c’ and ‘d’. <o:p></o:p>Defendant
who could not be traced to be served personally with the writ and statement of
claim was served by substituted service. <o:p></o:p>On
15/7/02, this court granted final judgment in plaintiffs’ favour in respect of
reliefs ‘c’ and ‘e’. <o:p></o:p>The
interest being claimed under relief ‘e’ was to be calculated on the amount
claimed under relief ‘c’. <o:p></o:p>Interlocutory
judgment was however entered in respect of reliefs ‘a’, ‘b’ and ‘d’ and
plaintiff tasked to prove these claims. <o:p></o:p>Defendant
was again served by substitution to appear for the hearing and assessment of
damages but failed to do so. The court was therefore compelled to hear
plaintiffs’ case in defendant’s absence to determine the question of title and
damages. <o:p></o:p>Plaintiffs
testified through the 2nd plaintiff, Martin Oduro and tendered in evidence six
documents to support their case. <o:p></o:p>After
hearing from plaintiffs, the court came to understand the reasons behind
defendant’s elusive behaviour. <o:p></o:p>The
fact is that the court is convinced by plaintiffs' unchallenged testimony that
they (pfs.) are entitled to all the reliefs being claimed. The court therefore
has no alternative than to enter judgment in plaintiffs' favour on the
remaining reliefs, viz; ‘a’, ‘b’ and ‘d’, as endorsed on the writ of summons. <o:p></o:p>

Plaintiffs
are awarded general damages of ¢6 million with costs of ¢4 million.<o:p></o:p></main>