THE REPUBLIC vs. THE REGISTRAR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT, SRKONDI (RESPONDENT) EX PARTE: JOSEPH NATTEY AND GEORGE ACQUAH [2018]DLCA5021

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE REGISTRAR, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT, SRKONDI (RESPONDENT)... [2018]DLCA5021

Date	2018-05-23
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.: H1/13/18
Citation No.	[2018]DLCA5021

IRENE C. LARBI (MRS) J.A. (PRESIDING)

LAWRENCE L. MENSAH) J.A.

A. M. DOMAKYAAREH (MRS.) J.A.

JOHN MERCER FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY/APPELLANT

ISAAC AGGREY-FYNN FOR THE APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

[2018]DLCA5021
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE REGISTRAR,
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT, SRKONDI<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE:&nbsp;&nbsp; JOSEPH NATTEY (APPLICANT/RESPONDENT)
AND GEORGE ACQUAH (INTERESTED PARTY/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, CAPE COAST]<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL APPEAL NO.: H1/13/18&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 MAY, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JOHN
MERCER FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY/APPELLANT<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>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>IRENE
C. LARBI (MRS) J.A. (PRESIDING),
LAWRENCE L. MENSAH) J.A., A.
M. DOMAKYAAREH (MRS.) J.A.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>A. M. DOMAKYAAREH (MRS), J.A<o:p></o:p>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This is an appeal against the judgment of
the High Court Sekondi dated 10th March 2016.&nbsp; In the said judgment, His Lordship the
Learned Trial Judge quashed the decision of the District Court, Sekondi dated
10th December 2013, by which the District Court had given judgment
in favour of the Interested Party/Appellant herein and against the Applicant/Respondent
herein.&nbsp; The Interested Party/Appellant
was the plaintiff at the District Court while the Applicant/Respondent was the
defendant at the District Court.<o:p></o:p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The antecedents of the litigation that
culminated in this appeal are that: The defendant i.e. the Applicant/Respondent
herein bought a piece of land on leasehold terms known as Plot No. 218A,
Airport Ridge Extension, Takoradi from the Ekisi Royal family (i.e. the family
of the Interested Party/Appellant) in 1987.&nbsp;
Thereafter, for a period of over ten years he lived and worked in the
United States of America.&nbsp; The Applicant/Respondent
contented that when he visited Ghana in December 2014, he became aware of a
judgment purportedly entered against him by the Respondent court on 10th
December 2013 following a Writ of Summons served by the Interested Party/Appellant
against him claiming reliefs which included an order for the Interested Party/Appellant
to re-enter the Applicant/Respondent’s plot No. 218A, Airport Ridge
Extension.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; At the hearing of the suit, the Respondent
District Court became aware that the Applicant/Respondent could not be
personally served with the Writ of Summons and therefore, the Court suo motu
made an order that the Writ of Summons be served on the Applicant/Respondent by
Substituted Service which was complied with.&nbsp;
The Applicant/Respondent still did not attend court whereupon the Court
made another order for a Hearing Notice to be served on the him again by Substituted
Service.&nbsp; This was also complied with. The
Applicant/Respondent still did not attend court whereupon the Respondent
District Court heard the case and delivered judgment against the Applicant/Respondent
as aforesaid.<o:p></o:p>4.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Applicant/Respondent applied to the
High Court to have this judgment quashed on the grounds that he was not both in
fact and in law served with the Writ of Summons that initiated the case and
that consequently there was a breach of the rules of Natural Justice when the
judgment was entered against him without hearing him.&nbsp; The Applicant/Respondent also contended that
the Substitution Orders relied upon by the Respondent District Court were
posted on the wrong property and not the one in dispute.&nbsp; He therefore sought an Order of Certiorari
from the High Court, Sekondi to quash the said decision of the District Court.<o:p></o:p>5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Interested Party/Appellant opposed the
Application. He contended that his family granted the plot in dispute in 1987
as aforesaid subject to terms, one of which was that the Applicant/Respondent
should develop the plot within three (3) years.&nbsp;
The Interested Party/Appellant deposed in his affidavit in Opposition
that in February 2013 his Lessor family realised that no development had taken
place on the disputed plot and therefore notified the Applicant/Respondent of
his default through his contact address as given in t</main>