JUDGMENT OF HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.
This is an application by motion on notice for an order reviewing the order of this court made on 21 February 1972 dismissing the defendant-applicant's (hereafter described as the applicant) application to relist a motion filed on 17 January 1972. It also asks for an order setting aside the default judgment delivered by this court on 1 April 1971. The motion of 17 January 1972 was one praying for an order to set aside a default judgment delivered by this court on 1 April 1971.
The plaintiff (hereafter referred to as the respondent) by her writ of summons dated 27 August 1970 claimed damages for the negligence of the applicant. No appearance was entered by the applicant and the respondent applied for and obtained an interlocutory judgment on 10 November 1970. Abban J. entering judgment said:
“The defendant was served with the writ of summons together with the statement of claim on 26 October 1970 and up to date he has [p.62] not entered appearance and he is out of time. In the circumstances, let interlocutory judgment be entered against the defendant for damages for negligence. Damages to be assessed on a date to be fixed by the registrar.”
The solicitor for the respondent then wrote a letter to the senior registrar on 19 November 1970 requesting that 30 November 1970 be fixed for the assessment of damages. There is nothing on the record to show that a copy of this letter was sent to the applicant. The case however was fixed for 30 November 1970 for the assessment of the damages. The case was further adjourned to 15 December 1970 when the evidence as to damages was given and completed on 16 December 1970. Judgment was given on 1 April 1971. Notice of judgment after trial was filed on 29 April 1971. There is an affidavit of personal service of this judgment on 8 May 1971 at Chorkor, Accra. On 21 May 1971, a writ of fieri facias was issued from the High Court for the attachment of the property of the applicant. On 13 July 1971 the applicant filed a motion to set aside the default judgment on the ground that he was never served with any writ of summons nor any statement of claim by the respondent. He admitted however that he was served with notice of the judgment after trial. The respondent filed an affidavit in opposition in which she claimed that the applicant was duly served with the writ of summons and that notice of it was even given to the applicant's insurers who repudiated liability on the ground of breach of the "
