RISS HENRY OKAIKWEI vs. NATHANIEL AZUMA NELSON AND MAAME SERWAA [2021]DLCA11790

Date	2021-12-09
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/56/2019
Citation No.	[2021]DLCA11790

WELBOURNE (MRS)

J.A. (PRESIDING)

ARYENE (MRS)

J.A.

BAAH

NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

PATRICK JUSTICE ANNIN FOR 1ST DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

[2021]DLCA11790
																																						<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" >RISS HENRY OKAIKWEI<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NATHANIEL AZUMA NELSON AND MAAME SERWAA<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, 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. H1/56/2019&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: 9TH DECEMBER 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION 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>WELBOURNE
(MRS), J.A. (PRESIDING), ARYENE (MRS), J.A., BAAH, J.A.<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="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:normal;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>BAAH, J.A<o:p></o:p>BACKGROUND<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">Defendant/Appellant, hereafter Appellant, conducted
his case by default.
<span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">He was in perpetual defiance of the procedural
commands of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules), C.I. 47. A recital of the
monumental and unbroken chain of defaults is imperative. Plaintiff/Respondent,
hereafter Respondent, issued his writ of summons with a statement of claim on
12th December, 2013. Respondent submitted to the jurisdiction of the
court by the filing of an entry of appearance on 8th January, 2014.
This was followed by a statement of defence on 12th March, 2014.
Issues for trial were settled on 7th May, 2014, with an order for
parties to file and exchange documents to be used at the trial. Whereas
Appellant filed (only) his documents to be used on 24th November,
2014, Respondent and his witness filed witness statements with documentary
annexures on 14th April, 2016. With leave of the court, an amended
statement of defence was filed by Appellant on 10th February, 2017.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">&nbsp;<span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The suit was adjourned to 10th March,
2017 but Appellant and counsel did not turn up. At the next sitting of 28th
March, 2017, counsel for Appellant failed to turn up despite having been served
with a hearing notice. The suit was adjourned to 2nd May, 2017 for
Case Management. Despite being served with a hearing notice and the court
notes, counsel for Appellant again failed to show up in court. The case was
then adjourned to 4th May, 2017 for continuation of the Case
Management. Counsel for Respondent filed a motion on 16th&nbsp; May, 2017, for an order striking out
Appellant’s amended statement of defence and counterclaim under Order 32 Rule
7A (3) (b), C.I 47, as amended by C. I 47. On 12th June, 2017, when
Appellant and his counsel failed to attend court, the court granted the
application and struck out his amended statement of defence and counterclaim. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">&nbsp;<span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">After some adjournments, the Respondent with leave
of the court testified on 14th July, 2017. The case was adjourned to
27th July, 2017 and subsequently to 10th October, 2017
for cross-examination. When Appellant and his counsel failed to turn up on 10th
October, 2017, Respondent was ordered to file his written address which was
done on 20th October, 2017. On 27th October, 2017, the
court ordered the written address of Respondent and a hearing notice to be
served on Appellant. The case was then adjourned for judgment.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">&nbsp;<span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The road to judgment was truncated by a motion on
notice by Appellant, praying for an order re-listing the statement of defence
and counterclaim, which had been struct out by the court. The court acceded to
the prayer and restored the statement of defence and counterclaim. Appellant
was ordered to file his witness statement within seven days. Punitive costs of
GHȼ<span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">20,000.00 was
imposed on Appellant, payable within seven days and conditional to the filing
of any process. The case was adjourned to 20 February for further directions.
On that day, Appellant was present, minus his counsel. Appellant informed the
court that he had neither paid the (punitive) costs nor filed his witness
statement. The court adjourned the suit to&nbsp;&nbsp;
22nd March, 2018 for judgment. On the said day, the court
delivered itself of its judgment, which is the subject of the instant appeal.
Being a one-sided contest, the court had little difficulty in entering judgment
for the Res</main>