AGNES BOATENG vs. ANGEL ESTATE CONSTRUCTION LTD [2016]DLHC4047

Date	2016-11-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC 08/207
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC4047

DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

BOAKYE DANQUAH FOR DEFENDANT/ APPLICANT

AMA ASSENSO FOR PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT.

[2016]DLHC4047
																																						<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" >AGNES BOATENG<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ANGEL ESTATE
CONSTRUCTION LTD<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT
(COMMERCIAL DIVISION), KUMASI]<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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

SUIT&nbsp;NO. OCC 08/207&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: 28TH NOVEMBER, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL
<o:p></o:p>BOAKYE DANQUAH FOR DEFENDANT/
APPLICANT<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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

</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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

</div><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>This
is a Motion on Notice praying this Honourable Court for an order setting aside
the default judgment entered against the Applicantherein on the 23rd
of September, 2016 and for leave to enter late appearance.<o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff/Respondent herein issued a Writ of Summons against the Defendant/Applicant
on the 25th of August, 2016 and effected service on the Defendant on
the same day. Subsequently, this Honourable Court entered default judgment in favour
of the Plaintiff/Respondent on the 23rd of September,2016 after the
Defendant/Applicant had failed to enter an appearance.<o:p></o:p>Naturally
aggrieved by the said default judgment, the Applicant has filed the instant application
and the grounds of the application are contained in the Affidavit in Support
filed on the 28th of October, 2016. The gravamen of the applicant’s
motion per the Affidavit is that it was not open for her to file an appearance
as the Writ of Summons was filed during the vacation. And that the default
judgment obtained during the vacation was in clear breach of the rules of court
and procedure and therefore void.<o:p></o:p>The
Respondent was opposed to the application and demonstrated the grounds in an Affidavit
in Oppositionfiled on 2nd November, 2016. The import of the
Respondent’s opposition was that the application is misconceived as the default
judgment was entered “in accordance with the rules of practice and procedure
and settled legal authorities”.<o:p></o:p>In
moving the motion, Counsel for the Applicant prayed the Court to set aside the
default judgment as the same offended the rules of court. Counsel argued that
since the writ was filed during the vacation and the default judgment also
obtained during the vacation, the default judgment is void as time does not run
during the vacation so it was premature for the judgment in default of appearance
to be entered against the Defendant.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
referred to Order 79 rule 4(b) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004,
CI 47 which defined pleadings. He argued forcefully that the Writ of Summons
and Entry of Appearance qualify as pleadings and as such the Entry of
Appearance in particular ought not be filed during the vacation since time does
not run during the vacation period. Counsel submitted that the default judgment
obtained is void as Defendant was not in default of appearance.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
also submitted that Plaintiff/Respondent ought to have put the
Defendant/Applicant on notice when he moved the court for judgment in default
of appearance. In the estimation of Counsel since the interest of the Defendant
was at stake, the Ex-parte Motion was inappropriate.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
also prayed the court to set aside the default judgment since the Applicant has
a strong defence to the action. On this point, Counsel referred the court to
the following cases:<o:p></o:p>Haruna v Art Council (1992)
2GLR 1<o:p></o:p>Kevin v Afayesi
(1984-86) 2 GLR 430<o:p></o:p>He
finally prayed that the default judgment be set aside to enable Defendant
defend herself. He also invited the court to declare all the processes filed by
the plaintiff/respondent void. <o:p></o:p>In
her response to the submissions of learned Counsel for the Applicant, Counsel
for the Respondent reiterated the latter’s opposition to the motion.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
contended that an Entry of Appearance or Notice of</main>