GHANA PRIVATE ROAD TRANSPORT UNION vs. NANA ASUMAH SUBSTITUTED BY MEMUNA ABASS [2019]DLHC8723

Date	2019-07-30
Suit No.	GHANA PRIVATE ROAD TRANSPORT UNION (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT) vs. NANA ASUMAH SUBSTITUTED (DEFENDANT/APPLICANT) BY MEMUNA ABASS
Citation No.	[2019]DLHC8723

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE FRANCIS OBIRI HIGH COURT JUDGE

EGBLOGBE ANAGLATE FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

MARGARET ADJE-TWUM FOR DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

[2019]DLHC8723
																																						<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" >GHANA PRIVATE
ROAD TRANSPORT UNION<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NANA ASUMAH
SUBSTITUTED (DEFENDANT/APPLICANT) BY
MEMUNA ABASS<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[HIGH COURT,
KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>COUNSEL:&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; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;EGBLOGBE ANAGLATE FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MARGARET
ADJE-TWUM FOR DEFENDANT/APPLICANT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE FRANCIS OBIRI,
HIGH COURT JUDGE<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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNoSpacing" 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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On
18th July 2019, counsel for defendant/applicant hereinafter called the
applicant filed the instant application.&nbsp;
The application is seeking the leave of the court to stay the
proceedings in respect of the delivery of the judgment and an order of the
court to restore the applicant witness statement. And further order of the
court for the applicant to open her defence.<o:p></o:p>The
motion is supported by affidavit deposed to by the applicant.&nbsp; The plaintiff/respondent hereinafter called
the respondent filed affidavit in opposition. The application was heard on 29th
July 2019.Counsel for the applicant prayed the court for the application to be
granted, while counsel for the respondent, prayed for the refusal of the
applicant application.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>I
wish to look at the chronology of events which gave rise to the instant
application.&nbsp; The respondent closed her
case on or around the later part of 2017.The original defendant died, before he
could open his defence. The applicant was substituted in his place on 25th
July 2018.The court adjourned the case to 26th October 2018 for the applicant
to open her defence.The applicant did not open her defence on 26th
October 2018.The case was further adjourned to 16th November 2018
for the applicant to open her defence. <o:p></o:p>On
16th November 2018, counsel for applicant prayed for adjournment.
The case was adjourned at her instance to 13th December 2018.On 13th
December 2018; the matter was adjourned at the instance of the applicant
counsel to 31st January 2019.&nbsp;
On 31st January 2019, the applicant counsel failed to attend
court.&nbsp; The respondent, her counsel as
well as the applicant were in court.&nbsp; The
matter was therefore adjourned to 14th February 2019 at the instance
of the applicant.&nbsp; The respondent, her
counsel and the applicant were present on 14th February 2019.&nbsp; Counsel for applicant was however absent.&nbsp; The court adjourned the case again to 1st
March 2019.&nbsp; On 1st March
2019, the case was again adjourned at the instance of applicant counsel.&nbsp; The court awarded cost of GH₵1,000.00.against
the applicant to be paid before the next adjourned date. The case was subsequently
adjourned to 18th March 2019.&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p>On
18th March 2019, the applicant and her counsel were absent from court.
The case was adjourned to 30th April 2019.The respondent was ordered
to serve hearing notice on the applicant which was complied with by the
respondent. The case was adjourned to 28th May 2019. On 28th
May 2019, the applicant was present but her counsel was absent without any notice
to the court. The respondent and her counsel were present.&nbsp; The court therefore struck out the defence of
the applicant and closed her case.&nbsp; It is
this order which has given rise to this application.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>From
the antecedents of the case, as I have stated above, it shows the applicant and
her counsel have not been diligent in handling this case.&nbsp; Counsel for the applicant in her submission argued
religiously that, the court should grant the application base on her inherent jurisdiction.
However, the inherent jurisdiction of a court is based on sound principles of
law such as where the court has made void orders. In that case, it has an
inherent jurisdiction to set aside the order ex-debito justitiae and no
discretion arises.<o:p></o:p>See: Mosi V Bagyina (1963) GLR 337 SC.<o:p></o:p>Penkro &amp; Ors V Kumnipah II (1987-88) 1 GLR 558 SC<o:p></o:p>Chantel V Koi (2011) 29 GMJ 20 CA.<o:p></o:p>In
this case however, there is no indication that the order of this court which
was made on 28th May 2019 was void.&nbsp;
In the case of Harlley V Ejura
Farms (Ghana) Ltd (1977) 2 GLR 179, the full bench of the Court of Appeal
held per Taylor J (as he then was) as follows: “In these courts, we dispense
justice in accordance with three, only three &nbsp;yardsticks; statute law, case law and the well-known
practice of our court”.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p></sp</main>