ANTOINE ELIAS BRIMO vs. A.G. TIMBERS [2017]DLHC4048

Date	2017-01-23
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC 31/2017
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC4048

DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

PRECIOUS AIDOO FOR DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

MRS. KAREN WOBIL FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

[2017]DLHC4048
																																						<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" >ANTOINE ELIAS BRIMO<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>A.G. TIMBERS<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 31/2017&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;DATE: 23RD JANUARY, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL
<o:p></o:p>PRECIOUS AIDOO 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>Before the court is an
application to set aside judgment in default of appearance filed through a
motion on notice pursuant to Order 10 of the High Court (Civil Procedure
Rules), 2004, CI 47.<o:p></o:p>The grounds of the
application are contained in the affidavit in support filed on 10/01/2017.<o:p></o:p>The Respondent is opposed
to the application and has demonstrated the grounds in the affidavit in
opposition filed on 12/01/2017.<o:p></o:p>At the hearing counsel for
the applicant relied on the affidavit in support as well as the annexures and
prayed the court to set aside the judgment in default of appearance. She also
prayed the court to grant the applicant leave to enter appearance. Counsel submitted
that in determining whether to grant the application, the court ought to
satisfy itself from the affidavit whether it discloses an explanation for the
default in entering an appearance and also whether it discloses a reasonable
defence to the claim. She made reference to pages 345 and 346 of Civil Procedure: the Practical Approach
by S. Kwami Tetteh. Counsel argued that the applicant has satisfied the
conditions&nbsp; required for the grant of the
application. She made reference to the proposed statement of defence &nbsp;in which the applicant is repudiating
liability.<o:p></o:p>In response, counsel for
the respondent, reiterated the respondent’s opposition to the motion and relied
on the affidavit in opposition as well as the annexures. Counsel argued that
the reasons given by the applicant are not good enough and as such the court
should not set aside the default judgment. She referred to paragragh 8 of the
affidavit in support and stated that ‘‘laws are made to be obeyed and an excuse
that their failure to abide by the law was not intentional cannot stand in
law’’. She also argued forcefully that the proposed statement of defence does
not disclose a reasonable defence.<o:p></o:p>Judgment in default of
appearance is regulated by Order 10 of CI 47. Order 10 r 8 specifically gives
the court the discretionary power to set aside judgment in default of
appearance. It states:<o:p></o:p>“The
court may, on such terms as it thinks fit, set aside or vary any judgment
entered in pursuance of this Order.”<o:p></o:p>When dealing with an
application to set aside judgment in default of appearance, the court considers
two main guiding principles:<o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That the applicant has given a
satisfactory explanation for his failure in entering appearance; and<o:p></o:p>b.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That he has an arguable defence to the
claim.<o:p></o:p>[See
Alphoneso O. Aryeetey and Anor v Royal
Investment Co. Ltd. And 18 Others, Civil Appeal No. H1/201/2005 (29th
November, 2005) CA. See also Ghana
Commercial Bank v Tabury(1977) 1GLR 329]<o:p></o:p>Is the Applicant's excuse
reasonable?<o:p></o:p>The reason given by the
applicant for his default in entering an appearance is captured in paragraph 8
of his affidavit in support. It states:<o:p></o:p>‘‘That
failure by counsel for the Defendant/Applicant to file the Notice of Entry of
Appearance on behalf of the Defendant/Applicant herein was not intentional.’’<o:p></o:p>In an application to set
aside judgment in default of appearance, it is not a mere acknowledgment of the
default that matters but whether there are reasons which are cogent and
convincing which can explain away the default. The applicant’s explanation for
his failure to enter an appearance is untenab</main>