ELIZABETH ASANTE vs. SAMPSON ANSAH BOATENG [2019]DLHC16407

Date	2019-09-16
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BFA/55/2011
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC16407

HIS LORDSHIP K. A. GYIMAH

NAA ABIANA MENSAH YAWSON FOR PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT.

MAXWELL KPODO FOR DEFENDANT/ APPLICANT.

[2019]DLHC16407
																																						<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" >ELIZABETH ASANTE&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SAMPSON ANSAH BOATENG <o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPLICANT)<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. BFA/55/2011&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 SEPTEMBER 2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>NAA
ABIANA MENSAH YAWSON FOR PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT.<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;">

</div>CORAM<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;">

</div>&nbsp;<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;">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>IN
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE, IN THE HIGH COURT OF <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Introduction<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This is an application by the
defendant/ applicant (applicant) seeking to stay execution of the judgment of
this Court dated 14th July 2017 and a further order to set aside the
said judgment. I dismissed the application on 5th September 2019 and
I deferred my reasons to today 16th September 2019.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Summary
of Applicant’s Submissions<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is the applicant’s case that he is
ordinarily resident in the United States of America and the Writ of Summons was
served on him outside the jurisdiction.&nbsp;
He engaged a lawyer who entered appearance and filed a defence on his
behalf. He asserts that as a result of some immigration challenges he was facing
which led to an arrest and deportation order being placed on him, he lost
communication with his lawyer.&nbsp; His
lawyer then withdrew his representation without notice to him because he was
not reachable.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In paragraph 9 of the affidavit in
support, he avers that the Court ordered all processes to be served on him by
courier service through the address stated below:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Sampson
Ansah Boateng<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; FIH
Enterprise Inc.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 1475,
New York 10452, USA<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is the applicant’s case that the
orders of the Court to serve the processes on him personally were not carried
out in accordance with the order as the processes were served on unknown
persons in the address and that at that time, he was not living in that address
and he was thus not served with any Court process. Furthermore, he did not have
knowledge of any proceedings in Court. He only became aware when a copy of a
Motion for an order to enter plots numbers 11 and 19 to conduct valuation was
posted on the properties in dispute.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It is the applicant’s case that he always
had the intention to contest the case and that he has a credible defence to the
action and as such he should be given leave to defend the action and for the
case to be determined on its merits. He further asserts that the judgment of
the Court is without merit and it was also obtained in bad faith as the
plaintiff all along knew that he did not live in the address where the
processes were served.<o:p></o:p>