DAULATTA DALIO vs. GUARANTY TRUST BANK GH. LTD [2018]DLHC3695

Date	2018-03-07
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC/04/14
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3695

GEORGE K. KOOMSON (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT)

OBENG-MANU JNR FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

YAW AGYEI-AFRAM FOR 1ST DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

[2018]DLHC3695
																																						<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" >DAULATTA DALIO<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GUARANTY TRUST BANK GH.
LTD<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>SUIT NO. OCC/04/14&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; &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; 7TH MARCH, 2018<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>OBENG-MANU JNR FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT <o:p></o:p>YAW AGYEI-AFRAM FOR 1ST DEFENDANT/APPLICANT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>GEORGE K. KOOMSON (JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT) <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

</div>RULING<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

</div>In this application, the 1st Defendant/Applicant prays
for an order setting aside the Entry of Judgment filed by the
Plaintiff/Respondent on the 6th September, 2017. The core contention
of the 1st Defendant/Applicant is that it has been served with an
Entry of Judgment when no judgment has been obtained against the 1st Defendant
in the case. In the view of 1st Defendant, the said entry of
Judgment filed on the 6th September, 2017 is irregular. The
plaintiff is opposed to the application. The plaintiff contends that the 1st
defendant has no locus to bring the present application and that the
judgment was obtained regularly. I have read the application and the supporting
affidavit. I have given consideration to the written submission of both
counsel. Regard has also been given to the earlier proceedings that culminated
in the judgment of the court on the 19th January, 2017. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is however, useful for me to make reference to the proceedings
that led to the said judgment. A brief summary of the facts are that the
Plaintiff issued a writ of summons against the 1st Defendant, the
auctioneer C.T. Squire and the Deputy Sheriff for an Order to set aside the
auction sale conducted by C.T. Squire, Licensed Auctioneer of Goodwill Mar on
22nd June, 2012, under a Writ of Execution dated 13th May,
2008 in suit no. AB6/2008 on the grounds of fraud, among other reliefs. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The 1st Defendant entered an appearance. However the 2nd
and 3rd defendants failed or neglected to enter an appearance.
The plaintiff accordingly moved the court for judgment in default of appearance
against the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The said application
was granted by the court on the 19th January, 2017. Subsequent to
this, the Plaintiff filed an Entry of Judgment on the 6th September,
2017. It is this entry of judgment that the 1st Defendant is seeking
to set aside. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Order 41 rule 7 of C.I 47 requires a party who seeks to have a
judgment entered to drawn up the judgment and present same to the Registry of
the Court that delivered the judgment for entry. Any party affected by the
judgment may also draw up the entry of judgment where the party in whose favour
the order was given fails to draw it up. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is noted that the 19th January, 2017 judgment was
entered against the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The
Plaintiff’s case against the 1st Defendant is however pending. It is
further noted that where there are more than one defendant in a pending suit,
all processes filed must be copied to all the parties in the suit, though the
process may be affecting one or all the parties in the suit. There is nothing
wrong with the service of the entry of judgment on the 1st defendant.
<o:p></o:p>It should however be noted that, where a party obtains an order or
judgment against one or any of the parties in the suit, any process that may be
filed to be entered or served on the parties must show the actual parties who
the or</main>