ABUSUAPANYIN KWASI DARTEY v. KWAME OFORI

JUDGMENT

The Plaintiff herein commenced this action per his lawful attorney claiming the

following against the Defendant:

a. Plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for an order directed at defendant to

give vacant possession of two bed room self-contained building he is occupying

in House No. M30 Duadekye.

b. Cost

The Defendant was duly served with the writ of summons and even though

Defendant had notice of the pending suit; the Defendant did not file any process to

contest the suit nor did he appear in Court personally to be heard. The Court therefore proceeded under Order 25 of the District Court Rules, 2009(C.I 59), and proceeded to

hear the matter without the Defendant.

Order 25 r 1(2) (a) provides;

“Where an action is called for trial and a party fails to attend, the trial magistrate may where

the Plaintiff attends and the Defendant fails to attend, dismiss the counterclaim if any and

allow the Plaintiff to prove the claim”

PLAINTIFF’S CASE

According to Plaintiff’s lawful Attorney, Defendant came to live in the house with his

father who is now deceased after the original owner of the house gave Defendant’s

father temporary accommodation in the house when Defendant’s deceased’s father,

Kofi Agyakwa needed accommodation at the time. Per Plaintiff’s Lawful Attorney’s

evidence to the Court, after Kwasi Anim Thomas, the original owner passed on,

Defendant’s father Kofi Agyakwa continued to live in the house with his wife and

children which included Defendant. Plaintiff’s lawful attorney told the Court that,

Defendant has shown gross disrespect to Plaintiff, is altering Plan of the building and

has refused to give vacant possession of the rooms. It is the Plaintiff’s case that

Defendant is not entitled to occupy the rooms in dispute.

Plaintiff closed his case thereafter without calling any witness.

As stated earlier, the Defendant did not file a witness Statement, neither did he appear

in Court to give evidence viva voce.

The Court therefore proceeded to determine the matter on the strength of the

Plaintiff’s case.

In the case of Nartey v. Mechanical Lloyd Assembly Press Ltd [1987-1988] 2GLR pg

314 Adade JSC stated that:

‘A person who comes to Court, no matter what the claim is, must be able to make a good case

for the Court to consider, otherwise he must fail’.

In the circumstance the issue that falls for determination is

“Whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to recover vacant possession of rooms in

dispute”

In h