1 This is an interlocutory appeal against the decision of the District Court, Dzodze dated 2 November 2022 that dismissed the Defendants Appellant’s application for judgment in default of defense to their counterclaim.
That is, according to the Appellant, the Respondent failed to file a defence to their counterclaim within the period, but the court, all the same, dismissed their application for judgment in default of defence.
Records show that the notice of appeal was filed on 21 November 2022 here in this Court, ostensibly without leave of the court below.
2 Grounds of the appeal, simply are that the District Court, Dzodze erred when it refused to grant the application for judgment in default of defence to the counterclaim and proceeded to hear the suit when first, the statutory period for filing statement of defence to the counterclaim has lapsed, and when plaintiff had orally indicated to the court that he would not react to the counterclaim.
3 After the notice of appeal that I have indicated just above that was filed at this Court on 21 November 2022, the appellant, in what I find as a twist of procedural hiccups and summersaults, seems to have filed another ‘application exparte for leave for extension of time within which to file a notice of interlocutory appeal out of time’. I say so because, the record shows that on 18 April 2023, the Court, presided by my esteemed late sister not only considered this ‘strange’ application but also granted it and further directed appellants to file what seems to be another notice of interlocutory appeal by 30 May 2023; adjourned the matter serially to 5 July and further to 17 October 2023. I find the appeal record to be unusually wieldy.
The 135-page document contains needless documents as far as the subject matter appeal is concerned.
Indeed, the record rather fails to show proof of the requisite or necessary documents on the subject matter.
Though certified by the registrar of the court below, the record of appeal does not bear any insignia of registration at the Registry of this Court.
4 The appellant personally initiated the appeal without the services of a lawyer.
No wonder that the steps or procedures the appellant adopted for the appeal are irregular, in fact, non-compliant with the requisite law that I will show later in this judgment.
Besides, the record of appeal, as I have just stated above, is bulky containing needless and irrelevant materials.
The appeal was however taken over by lawyers who
