CHARLES OSEI MENSAH vs. GHANA BROADCASTING CORPORATION [2018]DLHC3973

Date	2018-06-05
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC. 39/2018
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC3973

DR. RICHMOND OSEI-HWERE JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

ASIEDU BASOAH WITH ANDREW ACQUAYE FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

LISA ACQUAH FOR JOHN KWAME WAJAH FOR THE DEFENDANT/ APPLICANT

[2018]DLHC3973
																																						<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" >CHARLES OSEI MENSAH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA BROADCASTING CORPORATION<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">

SUIT&nbsp;NO. OCC. 39/2018&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; DATE: 5TH JUNE, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL
<o:p></o:p>ASIEDU BASOAH WITH ANDREW
ACQUAYE FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT <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><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;line-height:115%;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>This
is a motion on notice praying this Honourable Court for an order setting aside
the judgment in default of appearance entered against the Applicant herein and
for leave to enter late appearance. <o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff/Respondent herein commenced this action on the 12thDecember,
2017 by way of Writ of Summons accompanied by Statement of Claim against the
Defendant/Applicant herein. <o:p></o:p>The
Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant as follows:<o:p></o:p>1.
Recovery of a sum of Thirty-Five Thousand Six Hundred and twenty-five Ghana Cedis
seventy six pesewas (GHC35,625.76) being the retirement award\benefit owed to
the Plaintiff by the Defendant.<o:p></o:p>2.Recovery
of a sum of Twelve Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty Nine Ghana Cedis twenty-four
pesewas (GHC12,469.24) being interest of thirty five percent (35%) on the
principal sum of Thirty-Five Thousand Six Hundred and twenty-five Ghana cedis
seventy pesewas (GHC35,625.76) from 26th day of October 2015 to the
date of the issue of the Writ.<o:p></o:p>3.
Recovery of interest of thirty five percent (35%) on the principal sum of Thirty-Five
Thousand Six Hundred and twenty-five Ghana cedis seventy pesewas (GHC35,625.76)
from the date of issuance of the Writ to the date of final payment.<o:p></o:p>4.
Recovery of fifteen percent (15%) on the principal sum of Thirty-Five Thousand
Six Hundred and twenty-five Ghana cedis seventy pesewas (GHC35,625.76) as legal
fees.<o:p></o:p>5.
Recovery of ten percent (10%) on the principal sum of Thirty-five Thousand Six
Hundred and twenty-five Ghana cedis seventy pesewas (GHC35,625.76)as cost.<o:p></o:p>6.Any
further Order(s) as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make.<o:p></o:p>The
processes were duly served on the applicant herein, who by the court’s record
failed to enter appearance as required by Order 9 r 1 of the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47).<o:p></o:p>Consequently,
the Plaintiff moved for final judgment against the Defendant/ Applicant herein
and on the 6th February, 2018 the court entered judgment in “default
of appearance” in favour of the plaintiff for all the reliefs sought.<o:p></o:p>It
is this judgment in default of appearance which has necessitated the
application currently before me. The application was filed on the 7th
of May, 2018. In support of the application is an affidavit sworn on behalf of
the Applicant.<o:p></o:p>The
gravamen of the applicant’s motion per the Affidavit is that it could not enter
an appearance timeously as an attempt to do so was rejected by the registry.
According to the applicant, the registry intimated to them that a new form for
entry of appearance had been developed by the Judicial Service and the same was
inconsistent with their process. <o:p></o:p>The
Respondent was opposed to the application and demonstrated the grounds in an
Affidavit in Opposition filed on 18th May, 2018.The import of the
Respondent’s opposition was that the “defendant/applicant has not shown good
and sufficient reason why the application should be granted”.<o:p></o:p>In
moving the motion, Counsel for the Applicant prayed the Court to set aside the
default judgment as the same offended the rules of court. Counsel argued that per
Order 19 rule 1 and Order 10 of CI 47 it was wrong for the plaintiff/respondent
herein to file the mo</main>