CSIR vs. REV. BOHAM & ORS [2013]DLHC12076

Date	2013-04-25
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BL/364/2006
Citation No.	[2013]DLHC12076

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM

MR. DUBIK MAHAMA YAKUBU FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

MR. BEN ANNAN FOR DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS

MR. DELA BLAGOGEE FOR 12TH DEFENDANT

[2013]DLHC12076
																																						<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" >CSIR<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>REV.
BOHAM &amp; ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPLICATIONS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT NO. BL/364/2006&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: 25TH&nbsp;APRIL 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL&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; <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>Today is exactly one year that
a judgment was delivered in this case.&nbsp;
And today, the Court has been called upon to give its opinion on two
applications that have been brought before it by the defendants.&nbsp; The first application had been filed by Ben
Annan of Amui, Oku, Annan &amp; Associates for the defendants.&nbsp; Whiles Dela Blagogee of Blagogee, Blacksword
&amp; Co. filed for the 12th defendant. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The motions were to seek the
Court’s intervention to set aside its judgment and also to stay execution.&nbsp; The judgment of the Court of which the
defendants/applicants seek to set aside and stay execution was dated 25th
April 2012 and 14th day of May 2012.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The arguments of the
defendants/applicants, who will in this ruling be referred simply as applicants
and the plaintiff/respondent be referred also as respondent.&nbsp; They argued that it was upon noticing a
publication of the judgment against them in the Daily Graphic of 15th
January 2013 at page 59 that they ran to their lawyers.&nbsp; There was no personal service of these
numerous defendants.&nbsp; The applicants
further argued as in paragraph 8 of their affidavit attached that <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“That the defendants did not deliberately absent
themselves from Court proceedings but were not aware of the dates.”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This is the crust of the
matter - there was no personal service.&nbsp;
In paragraph ‘6’ Michael Nyinaku deposed that, he is “the 12th
defendant/applicant that any mode of service apart from personal service ought
to be embarked upon after efforts to effect personal service has failed”.”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;He (Nyinaku) further deposed
at paragraph ‘7’ “That after being served with the Writ of Summons, I filed my
defence through my former solicitors Menkah-Premo &amp; Co. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;‘8’ “That neither I nor my former solicitors have
been served with any process whatsoever after the case has been in abeyance for
about 2 years.”<o:p></o:p><</main>