AKOSUA KARLE OKOH vs TETTEH AYAA IDDRISU AND 6 OTHERS [2018]DLHC16165

Date	2018-04-16
Suit No.	SUIT NO: AL 15/2015
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC16165

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO

MR. MICHAEL AKANBEK

[2018]DLHC16165
																																						<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" >AKOSUA KARLE
OKOH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>TETTEH AYAA IDDRISU AND
6 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

SUIT NO: AL 15/2015&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 16TH APRIL 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

MR. MICHAEL
AKANBEK FOR THE PLAINTIFF - PRESENT <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP
JUSTICE KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="Default" align="center" style="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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;i. Introduction <o:p></o:p>[1]
On the 11th day of December 2014 the
Plaintiff caused the writ of summons accompanied by a statement of claim to
issue against the Defendants for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p>a. A declaration that the attachment and subsequent sale of
the Plaintiff’s land known as Plot number B11 within Sector A of the Atomic
Hills Estate situate, lying and being at Ashongman in the Greater Accra Region
of the Republic of Ghana bounded on the North by 1st Pine Close measuring 100
feet more or less, on the South by Plot No. B10 measuring 100 feet more or
less, on the East by Pink Measuring 700 feet more or less, on the West by Plot
No. B8 measuring 700 feet more or less and containing an approximate area of
0.16 acre or 0.06 hectare to the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants on 9th
September 2014 is illegal, null and void. <o:p></o:p>b. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the
Defendants, their assigns, agents, servants and or workmen from dealing with
the land in dispute or interfering with the Plaintiff’s interest in the land in
dispute. <o:p></o:p>c. General Damages for trespass. <o:p></o:p>d. Costs including Solicitors fees. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[2] From the record the 3rd Defendant was served with the
writ of summons and the statement of claim on January 3, 2015. He was also
served with the Motion for Interlocutory Injunction on January 13, 2015.
Subsequently, by an Order of Substituted Service dated May 4, 2015 the 3rd
Defendant was again served together with the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th
Defendants were served with the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim.
Further to the service and after the Defendants failed to enter appearance and
to file a defence, the Plaintiff filed for default judgment in respects of
reliefs endorsed on the writ of summons. By an order of the Court dated 17th
June 2016 the Motion for Judgment was also served on the Defendants by
substituted service. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[3]
By an order dated November 2, 2017 the Court
granted an Interlocutory Judgment in favour of the Plaintiff and thereafter, I
ordered that the Plaintiff to file a witness statement(s) to prove the claim
and serve same on the Defendants together with a Hearing Notice by substituted
service. The Plaintiff complied with the order and filed a witness statement
with attached exhibits on November 16, 2017. The Plaintiff further complied
with the order for service and there is an<o:p></o:p>Affidavit of Posting on the docket
that the Defendants were served with the witness statement and the hearing
notice on November 17, 2017. The Plaintiff also filed a Supplementary Witness
Statement to attach a copy of her land title registration as an exhibit on
November 22, 2017. The supplementary witness statement together with the Court
notes of November 23, 2017 was again served on the Defendants by substituted
service on November 24, 2017. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[4] The reason why the Court opted to serve the Defendants
with hearing notices even though they failed to comply with the orders and
attend Court was that on the authorities, where a Court has taken a decision
without due regard to a party who was absent at trial because he was unaware of
the hearing date, that decision is a nullity for lack of jurisdiction on the
part of the Court. See: BARCLAYS BANK v. GHANA CABLE CO [1998-1999] SCGLR 1 and
the earlier case of VASQUEZ v. QUARSHIE [1968] GLR 62. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[5] On the other hand, the law is that where the party is
sufficiently made aware of the hearing date and/or offered the opportunity to
appear in court to answer/defend or as in the present case where the Defendants
were duly served but they failed/refused to attend Court, the Court is entitled
to proceed to determine the case on the basis of the evidence adduced at the
trial, notwithstanding the absence of the party, in this case the Defendants.
See Order 36 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, (2004, CI
47) and also IN RE: WEST COAST DYING IND. LTD; ADAMS v TANDOH
[1987-88] 2 GLR 561. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;