HUGH KWARTELAI QUARTEY vs. SOLOMON KWAME YEBOAH [2009]DLCA4846

Date	2009-12-17
Suit No.	SUIT NO: H1/100/2009
Citation No.	[2009]DLCA4846

MARFUL-SAU JA (PRESIDING)

AYEBI JA

ADUAMA- OSEI JA

[2009]DLCA4846
																																						<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" >HUGH
KWARTELAI QUARTEY<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT)<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-ansi-language:EN-US"><o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SOLOMON
KWAME YEBOAH<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, 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">

SUIT
NO: H1/100/2009&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: 17TH DECEMBER,
2009<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">

MARFUL-SAU JA (PRESIDING), AYEBI JA,
ADUAMA- OSEI JA<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>MARFUL-SAU,
JA:<o:p></o:p>This appeal raises elementary issues
on civil procedure practice in the High Court, but which are fundamental. The
record of appeal reveals series of irregularities regarding the old High Court
Civil Procedures Rules LN 140A and C.I. 47 of 2004. The brief facts of the case
are that the Plaintiff/ Respondent herein referred to as Respondent issued a
writ at the High Court, Accra on the 7th of May, 1999 seeking the following
reliefs:-<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
a) A declaration of title to all the land at Dome described in the
Schedule &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; as A<o:p></o:p>b) Recovery of
Possession <o:p></o:p>c) Damages for trespass<o:p></o:p>d) An order of perpetual
injunction against the defendant and all his agents and workmen.<o:p></o:p>The defendant entered appearance
through his lawyer E. Nyamekye-Baah on the 3rd of June 1999 and
followed it up with a defence on 22nd June 1999. After close of pleadings, the
case suffered a series of adjournments and counsel for defendant filed a Notice
of Withdrawal on the 3rd of May 2002. In view of this development several
orders were made by the trial court for personal service on the defendant. The
record of appeal reveals that most of the orders were not carried out. A
careful examination of the record of appeal at pages 16, 17, 20, 26 and 40
proves the fact that orders regarding service of Hearing Notices and other
processes on the defendant were not carried out as ordered by the trial court.<o:p></o:p>In the midst of these events Counsel
for defendant who had earlier filed notice of withdrawal appears in court for
the defendant only to abandon the defendant again. After series of adjournments
the Plaintiff was given the opportunity to lead evidence in the absence of the
defendant on the 8th of April 2007 and judgment was entered for the
plaintiff, on the same day. The defendant upon service on him of the judgment
filed a motion to set it aside and the application was dismissed by the trial
court on the 16th of May 2008. This appeal was therefore launched
against the order refusing to set aside the judgment. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The defendant/ appellant herein
referred to as appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with nine (9) grounds and no
additional grounds were filed. The grounds of appeal formulated were as
follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The learned High Court Judge&nbsp; erred in law in dismissing the appellant’s
application on Notice to set aside the default judgment on the basis of the
preliminary objection raised by the lawyer for the plaintiff//respondent.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>b)