On the 26th day of October 2022, the 3rd Defendant/Applicant filed the instant Application praying the Court for an order setting aside the Default Judgment of this Court delivered on the 17th day of June, 2021.
The nucleus of the Application is captured in paragraph 5 of the Affidavit in Support of the Application.
Same reads:
“ ‘5’ That a Search conducted at the Registry of this Honourable Court showed that the Writ of Summons, the Statement of Claim and the Entry of Judgment in this case were served through Substituted Service but unfortunately the Applicant did not get to have any notice of any.”
A copy of the Search Report was exhibited as Exhibit ‘JB1’.
A look at Exhibit ‘JB1’ shows the Applicant was served with a copy of the Writ of Summons and the attached Statement of Claim on the 17th day of June, 2022.
A copy of the Entry of Judgment was also served on the Applicant on the 6th day of July, 2022.
Counsel contends Paul Opoku Esquire who acted for and on behalf of the 3rd Defendant did so without the authority of the 3rd Defendant.
Counsel for the Applicant submits that upon the service of the Affidavit in Opposition they detected that the Judgment complained of is a final Judgment and not a Default Judgment.
Counsel therefore submits that the Court treats the Application as one to set aside a final Judgment in the interest of justice.
In opposing the Application Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent submitted that it is too late in the day since their Affidavit in Opposition was based on an Application to set aside a Default Judgment and not a final Judgment.
And that once they have taken a step in the matter the Applicant cannot orally amend the Application.
Counsel on the 11th day of May, 2021 per the Orders of this Court the Applicant was served with a copy of the Writ of Summons and the Statement of Claim via Substituted Service.
Counsel continued that there was also a Newspaper publication in the Daily Graphic for the purpose.
Counsel therefore contends that Exhibit ‘JB1’ is therefore an error.
Counsel contends further that on the service of the Writ of Summons the Applicant caused Paul Opoku Esquire to enter an Appearance and also filed a Defence on their behalf.
The said Counsel thereafter represented the Applicant throughout the trial leading to the Judgment complained of.
Thereafter the Applicant caused Applications for Stay of Execution to be filed which Applications were dismissed.
According to Counsel presently the App
