NANA DWOMO SARPONG vs. MADAM AKUA KONADU AND 7 OTHERS [2017]DLHC5668

Date	2017-12-19
Suit No.	SUIT NO: C7/118/2007
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC5668

JUSTICE FRANCIS OBIRI

ANNIS MOHAYIDEEN FOR APPLICANTS

FRANKLIN ASAMOAH FOR RESPONDENT

[2017]DLHC5668
																																						<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" >NANA DWOMO SARPONG<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MADAM AKUA KONADU AND 7 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, 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">

SUIT NO: C7/118/2007&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: 19TH
DECEMBER, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ANNIS MOHAYIDEEN FOR
APPLICANTS<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">

FRANKLIN
ASAMOAH FOR RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</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">

</div><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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;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>On 30th January 2007, the plaintiff/respondent
hereinafter called the respondent issued a writ of summons against the defendants/applicants
hereinafter called the applicants for certain reliefs. Among the reliefs the
respondent is claiming against the applicants is:<o:p></o:p>a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
An
order of the court directing the payment to the defendants (applicants herein)
an amount of ¢700 million (Seven Hundred Million Cedis) representing the value
of 37½ percent shares held by the defendants in Sunstex Company limited.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The respondent repeated this assertion
in paragraphs 9, 27, and 33 of the statement of claim.<o:p></o:p>The applicants
in their statement of defence and counterclaim filed on 12th
February 2007 disputed the 37½ percent figure the respondent stated in his writ.
They stated that they are entitled to 51 percent.&nbsp; Counsel for the applicants filed the instant
application on 31st October 2017 based on the respondent relief ‘a’ in his writ of summons.&nbsp; The motion is praying this court for judgment
on admission in favour of the applicants in respect of 37½ percent of the
proceeds from Sunstex Company Limited&nbsp;&nbsp; since
2002. The motion is supported by affidavit and annexures.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The applicants main contention in the
motion paper is that, the court should give them judgment based upon the respondent
admission in his writ. This would entitle them to 37½ percent share in respect
of any amount realised from the operations of the company since 2002 when the
applicants husband/father died.<o:p></o:p>The motion was served on the respondent
counsel through his clerk on 1st November 2017 as per the affidavit
of service commissioned on 3rd November 2017. Counsel for respondent
did not file any affidavit in opposition.<o:p></o:p>When the motion came up for hearing on
14th December 2017, counsel for the applicants prayed the court that,
per the respondent own endorsement on the writ of summons, judgment should be
entered against him based on his own admission.&nbsp;
Counsel added that, the court should therefore order the respondent to refund
37½ percent of the amount realised from the operation of Sunstex Company Ltd.
in dispute to the applicants.<o:p></o:p>I have indicated earlier that, the
respondent was served with the motion through his lawyer but he failed to file
any affidavit in opposition.&nbsp; Counsel for
respondent also failed to appear in court on the day the motion was heard.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The respondent counsel did not file any
process but that does not give the applicant automatic right to the grant of
the application.&nbsp; In such cases, the
court has to examine the contents of the application and satisfy itself that it
has substance or merit before same can be granted.&n</main>