NANA NWARE EZIA II vs. WESTERN REGIONAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION PER THE CHAIRMAN& SECRETARY [2014]DLCA5466

NANA NWARE EZIA II vs. WESTERN REGIONAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION PER THE CHAIRMAN& SE... [2014]DLCA5466

Date	2014-01-15
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL SUIT NO: H1/33/13
Citation No.	[2014]DLCA5466

C. J. HONYENUGA

J.A (PRESIDING)

B. F. ACKAH-YENSU J.A

J. B. BENSON J.

CONSTANTINE KUDZEDZI FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

PHILLIP NKRUMAH FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

[2014]DLCA5466
																																						<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" >NANA NWARE EZIA II<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>WESTERN REGIONAL MUSLIM ASSOCIATION PER THE CHAIRMAN&amp;
SECRETARY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, CAPE COAST]<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">

CIVIL
APPEAL SUIT NO: H1/33/13&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;15TH JANUARY,
2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>CONSTANTINE KUDZEDZI FOR
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<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="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">PHILLIP NKRUMAH FOR
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>C. J. HONYENUGA, J.A (PRESIDING), B. F.
ACKAH-YENSU J.A, J. B. BENSON J.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:
0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU, JA<o:p></o:p>This
is an appeal against the Ruling of the Circuit Court, Takoradi, and dated 6th
January, 2012, which was made in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent (to be
referred to simply as “Plaintiff”). The Defendants/Appellants (also to be
referred to as “Defendants”) dissatisfied with the ruling have filed a notice
of appeal against the said ruling. The grounds of appeal are that;<o:p></o:p>“(i)
The learned trial Judge wrongly exercised his discretion in favour of the
Plaintiff by refusing the Appellant’s application to set aside the default
judgment.<o:p></o:p>(ii)
The learned trial Judge misconstrued the whole of <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;the Appellant’s application to set aside the
default judgment”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Plaintiff had
earlier by his statement of claim issued a writ against the Defendants for the
following reliefs;<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; “(a)
Damages and compensation for breach of the terms of the lease<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(b) An order permitting the Plaintiff to
exercise her right of re-entry over the said Plot A, Apremdu Extension Scheme”.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>From the pleadings
it is the case of the Plaintiff that on 16th August 1981, the
Plaintiff Stool per Nana Nyankah Brem II granted a lease in respect of Plot
Numbers ‘A’ and ‘B’ Apremdu Extension Scheme to the Defendants, which lease was
plotted at the Lands Secretariat, Sekondi. By clause 2(a) of the said lease the
Defendants were to pay annual rent of GH¢21.00 and also erect an approved
school building on the land within three (3) years.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Defendants
however failed to pay the annual rent as well as develop the said plots,
precisely Plot ‘A’ by erecting a school thereon within the stipulated time
thereby breaching the terms of the lease. By a letter dated 23rd
February, 2011, the Plaintiff through his lawyers notified the Defendants of
the breach and prompted them to remedy same failing which Plaintiff would exercise
his right of remedy in respect of the land under the lease. The Defendants
however failed to remedy the breach.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Plaintiff
initially had the writ of summons served on the Defendants by posting to P. O.
Box 0182, Takoradi, but later applied to the Court for an order to have the
writ served through the post to the said address and also by pasting the writ on
a conspicuous part of the land in dispute, which was granted on 7th June 2011. The
Plaintiff thereafter filed a Motion Ex-parte for Judgment in Default of
Appearance and same was granted on 8th July 2011<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Defendant on 19th
December, 2011 filed a Motion to set aside the default judgment on the ground
that they were not served any Court processes. Defendants also argued that at
the time the substituted service was granted, the Plaintiff was aware that
Defendants were no longer using the address used. Defendants had written to
Lands Commission and copied Plaintiff’s predecessor, informing them about a
change of address as far back as 31st March, 1997, the
Plaintiff/Stool wrote to the Lands Commission using the new address (page 34 of
the Record) and copied the Defendants. On 26th March, 2010 the Stool
Lands Administrator wrote to the Defendants using the same address (page 35 of
the Record). In addition to all this, acco</main>