ALLIANCE MARINE SERVICE v. THE VESSEL M/V JAMES TOWN & ORS
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- OWUSU M., J.A. (PRESIDING)
- OFOE V., J.A.
- LOVELACE-JOHNSON, J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Maritime Law
- Contract Law
2013
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves an appeal against a default judgment granted by the High Court, Tema, in favor of the plaintiff, who sought to recover a debt related to a maritime Management Agreement. The defendants/appellants argued multiple grounds, including improper service, excessive costs, and procedural non-compliance by the plaintiff. The appellate court upheld the default judgment, affirming that non-compliance with procedural rules constituted an irregularity rather than nullifying the proceedings and maintaining that the judgment was rightly based on the actual amount claimed by the plaintiff. All other grounds of appeal were dismissed as meritless.
MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A:
On 6-10-2009, the High Court, Tema refused to set aside the default judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff/respondent dated 7-4-2009, for leave to defend the suit and for stay of execution of the said judgment until the determination of the present application.
Dissatisfied with the ruling of the High Court, the defendants/appellants filed a Notice of Appeal dated 23-10-2009 to this court on the following grounds:
i. The learned High Court Judge erred in granting default judgment against the defendants when the 2nd defendant had not been served.
ii. The learned Judge gravely erred when he granted default judgment in a sum more than the plaintiff was entitled to.
iii. The learned High Court Judge gravely erred when he granted default judgment against the 1st defendant’s vessel when the plaintiff had served the writ on its own officers manning the 1st defendant vessel without any notice to the 2nd defendants’ owners of the vessel.
iv. The cost of GH¢90,000.00 awarded in the default judgment is harsh and excessive in the circumstances of the case.
v. The ruling of the court is against the weight of evidence before the court.
vi. The learned High Court Judge erred when he dismissed the application because one of the defendants was within the jurisdiction.
vii. The High Court erred when it distinguished between plaintiff’s action against the 1st defendant from that against the 2nd defendant.
viii. The learned trial court erred when it held that the action against the vessel has not been faulted.
ix. The learned trial Judge erred when he held that the procedural flaws were only jurisdiction of the court.
x. The learned trial Judge erred when he held that the defendants were duly served.
xi. The trial Judge erred when he held that the defendants accepted the validity of the processes and those flaws were cured by their acknowledgments.
xii. The learned trial Judge erred when he held that the defendants proposed defence has no substance.
xiii. The learned High Court Judge erred when he held that the defendant’s complaints about service of the writ of summons were mere technicalities.
xiv. The learned High Court Judge erred when he dismissed the defendants application because it raised only technicalities.
xv. The cost of GH¢2,000.00 awarded by the learned trial court upon dismissing the defendants’ application is harsh and excessive.
Addition grounds to be filed upon the receipt of the Record of Appeal
The Reliefs Sought