MULTI - CONCEPT CO. LIMITED vs. JONAS NIKOI AND BETHEL LAW CONSULT [2016]DLHC11581

Date	2016-04-05
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC/11/13
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC11581

HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH (MRS.)

BRIDGETTE ATTAH KONADU LED BY NANA YAW NTRAKWAH FOR PLATINFF

GRACE OPOKUWAA ADDAI HOLDING BRIEF FOR YAW ASARE-DARKO FOR 1ST DEFENDANT

STEVE GRAY HOLDING BRIEF FOR FAUSTELL COFIE FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT

[2016]DLHC11581
																																						<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" >MULTI - CONCEPT CO. LIMITED<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>JONAS NIKOI AND BETHEL LAW CONSULT<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. OCC/11/13&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; DATA: 5TH APRIL 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>BRIDGETTE
ATTAH KONADU LED BY NANA YAW&nbsp;&nbsp; NTRAKWAH
FOR PLATINFF <o:p></o:p>GRACE
OPOKUWAA ADDAI HOLDING BRIEF FOR YAW ASARE-DARKO FOR 1ST DEFENDANT <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;">

STEVE GRAY HOLDING BRIEF FOR FAUSTELL
COFIE FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE AKUA SARPOMAA AMOAH
(MRS.)<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;tab-stops:69.4pt;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>&nbsp;The
Plaintiff/Respondent herein on the 26th day of February, 2016, took a
preliminary objection to a previous application for leave to enter late
appearance and to set aside Default Judgement filed by the 1st
Respondent/Applicant on the 12th day of February 2016, on the following
grounds:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;A)&nbsp;&nbsp; The
affidavit attached to motion had not been sworn in breach of Order 20 rule 2 of
CI 47.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;B)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; There
was no evidence before this Court that Counsel had taken out a practicing
certificate for the year 2016, as required by section 8(1) of the Legal
Profession Act, Act 32 which rendered him incompetent to represent the 1st
Defendant in bringing the said application.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;C)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
1st Defendant/Applicant had failed to exhibit the documents attached to the
said affidavit as required by Order 20 rule 14.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This
Court after hearing both Parties upheld Plaintiff/Respondent’s preliminary
objection and dismissed the 1st Defendant’s application on the basis of the
above listed grounds. The instant application is a repeat application for leave
to enter appearance and to set aside the Default Judgment obtained against the
1st Defendant following the said dismissal.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
Plaintiff/Respondent opposes the instant application on two main grounds namely
that the instant application having been heard and determined previously by
this Court cannot be repeated by the Applicant and secondly, that the instant
application lacks merit since Default Judgment was regularly obtained against
the Applicant who failed or refused to enter appearance even though duly served
with Plaintiff’s writ. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Counsel
for the 1st Defendant/Applicant contends that the decision of the Court
dismissing the previous application does not preclude 1st Defendant from
bringing the instant application as the same did not constitute a decision on
the merits.&nbsp; Counsel for Respondent
asserts the contrary, effectively raising the plea of res judicata. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Flowing
from the submissions of both Counsel, I find that the crucial issue before this
Court is whether the previous decision of this Court dismissing the 1st
Defendants application constituted a decision on the merits.&nbsp; In the case of THE REPUBLIC V HIGH COURT ACCRA, COMMERCIAL DIVISION.EXPARTE HESSE V
INVESTCOM 7 SCANCOM LTD, 2007-2008, 1230 her Ladyship GEORGINA WOODE CJ, had
this to say; at page 1244, “….the trial courts right to hear a repeat
application to set aside a default judgment is dependent on the grounds on
which the new application is procee</main>