NAI OTUO TETTEH vs. OPANYIN KWADWO ABABIO AND NAI KOJO ADU II [2016]DLCA5488

Date	2016-06-27
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL SUIT NO. H1/26/16
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA5488

HONYENUGA JA (PRESIDING)

GYAN JA

SUURBAAREH JA

MR. KOJO ANAN - FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT AND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

MR. KWEKU PAINTSIL – FOR APPLICANT/APPELLANT.

[2016]DLCA5488
																																						<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" >NAI OTUO TETTEH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>OPANYIN KWADWO ABABIO<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>AND NAI
KOJO ADU II (APPLICANT/APPELLANT)<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. H1/26/16&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; 27TH JUNE, 2016<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;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:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>SAEED
K. GYAN, JA<o:p></o:p>This is an appeal against the Ruling of
the High Court, Agona Swedru, dated 27th October,2015. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This case raises a huge conundrum. On
the face of the record are two judgments in respect of the same case delivered
by the same High Court, but differently constituted. Both judgments have been
termed Consent Judgments. Issues have, accordingly, and naturally been raised
as to the health and legal validity of the said two judgments.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The first judgment was entered by Senyo
Dzamefe, J (as he then was) on 22/12/2004 based upon Terms of settlement of the
dispute pending before the Court. The Terms of Settlement, filed on 20/12/2004,
were duly signed by the parties and their respective legal Counsel [see pages
30 to 32 of the RO A]. The settlement followed an intervention by one Nai
Kobina Tetteh who sought the leave of the Court for settlement out of Court,
upon the agreement of both parties [page 154 of R O A]. The Court having
apparently entered judgment upon the agreed terms of settlement filed by the
parties then proceeded to include or attach thereto what may clearly be
regarded as consequential orders. It then adjourned the case to 21/2/05. On the
face of the record no reason was given for the adjournment, except an inference
to be drawn from the nature of the Court’s aforesaid consequential orders.
(page 157).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The record seems to suggest that, at
the time the consent judgment of 22/12/2004 was entered, Application for
Directions had been filed, but obviously not taken. The record further shows
that five (5) years after the consent judgment entered by Dzamefe, J the same
High Court, now presided over by B. O. Tetteh, J, on 01/06/2009 entered another
“consent judgment” based on the minutes of an earlier meeting purportedly
attended by the parties to the suit for the purpose of settling the case. The
consent judgment was entered in the following terms:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“BY
COURT:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; By consent minutes of
the Anona Chochoo Botchwe family of Awutu with the sub-title, settlement.
Consent Judgment is now entered. Judgment within the spirit of this settlement
is now entered by consent”<o:p></o:p>