ERNEST ANOKYE vs. OPANIN KOFI MANU & ORS [2017]DLHC4055

Date	2017-01-31
Suit No.	SUIT NO. RPC 70/2013
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC4055

DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

WILLIAM KUSI FOR THE PLAINTIFF

[2017]DLHC4055
																																						<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" >ERNEST ANOKYE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>OPANIN KOFI MANU &amp; ORS<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. RPC 70/2013&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: 31ST JANUARY, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL
<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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>On the 13th of January,
2016 the Plaintiff instituted an action against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd
defendants. By his writ of summons, the plaintiff sought the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>1.
The recovery of an amount of Thirteen Thousand, Two Hundred and fifty Ghana
Cedis (13,250.000) being the amount of money plaintiff paid to the defendants
in consideration for a four and half (4 ½) acre land for which the defendants
failed to deliver and have failed to refund<o:p></o:p>2.
An interest on the said amount of Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Ghana
Cedi from December 2013 to the date of final payment<o:p></o:p>Appearance was entered on
behalf of the Defendants by their solicitor on the 30th of January 2015 and they
later filed a statement of defense.<o:p></o:p>The Defendants denied
liability to the plaintiff’s claim on the basis that the disputed land had been
transferred to the plaintiff by the first defendant in his capacity as head of
family. <o:p></o:p>The 2nd Defendant
also denied liability and stated that he only acted as witness to the
transaction and also to acknowledge the fact that the 1st defendant had
capacity to transfer the said land. The 3rd defendant denied liability stating
that she never had a hand in the transaction which has culminated in the
instant dispute.<o:p></o:p>After unsuccessful
attempts at settlement, six issues were set down for trial namely:<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the land sold to the
plaintiff had previously been sold to a third party.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the land referred to by
the defendant’s family caretaker is distinct from the disputed land<o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not a third party has made
any adverse claim to the land in dispute.<o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not third defendant was a
party to the land transaction in dispute<o:p></o:p>5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the defendants shared
the purchase paid by the plaintiff among themselves.<o:p></o:p>6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether or not the plaintiff is
entitled to his claims against the defendants.<o:p></o:p>It is observed that per
the Court’s records, the Defendants were duly served with hearing notices to
attend court for the trial to commence but they failed to show up. This is
evidenced by some of the affidavits of service sworn on 23/06/2016 and 22/12/2016.<o:p></o:p>The defendants also failed
to comply with the orders of the court to file their witness statements. The
court consequently invoked Order 32 rule 7A of the High Court (Civil Procedure)
(Amendment) Rules, 2014, CI 87 and struck out the defence of the defendants.<o:p></o:p>With the continuous
absence of the Defendants, the court had no option than to proceed with the
case under order 36 rule 1(2)(a) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules
2004, CI 47. It states:<o:p></o:p>Rule 1(2) where an action is called
for trial and a party fails to attend, the trial judge may;<o:p></o:p>