Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
On 10th May 2018, the Plaintiff commenced this action against the Defendant seeking:
1. An order of ejectment and recovery of possession of House Number 8 Noi Fetreke Street Ambassadorial Estate Airport Residential Area, Accra for non-payment of rent.
2. The sum of US$ 42, 000 or its cedi equivalent at the prevailing forex bureau rate on the date of payment being rent arrears from 1st October 2017 to 30th April 2018 at the rent of $6, 000 per month.
3. Mense profits at the rate of $6, 000 per month or its cedi equivalent from 1st May 2018 until the date the Defendant delivers possession of the said premises.
4. An order that the Defendant do pay all outstanding utilities up to the date the Defendant delivers possession of the premises to the Plaintiff.
5. Interest on the sum of US$42, 000. 00 or its cedi equivalent at the prevailing bank rate from 30th May 2017 to date of final payment.
6. Interest on any sums found due under relief 3 at the prevailing bank rates from the due date of final payment.
The Defendant was served with the writ and statement of claim on the 14th day of May, 2018. On 8th June 2018, it entered an appearance per its solicitor, Hanifa Yahaya Esq. of Hay & Partners at Law, but failed to file a defence.
The Plaintiff therefore brought an application for interlocutory judgment in default of defence, which was granted on 11th December 2018. A defendant takes the blame for failing to appear in court to defend an action against him.
In the case of Ex parte State Housing Co. Ltd. (No. 2) [2009] SCGLR 185 it was held that a party who disables himself from being heard cannot later turn around and accuse the adjudicator of breaching the rules of natural justice.
See also Republic v. Court of Appeal Accra, Ex Parte East Dadekotopon Development Trust, Civil Motion No. J5/39/2015, dated 30th July 2015 and Baiden v. Solomon [1963]GLR488 at page 495. Final Judgment was entered in respect of reliefs two and five dealing with liquidated damages.
The Court entered interlocutory judgment for the Plaintiff for reliefs 3, 4 & 6, while relief one was struck out, because the Defendant had by then vacated the premises.
The Court ordered the Defendant to be served by with a copy of the order and the entry of judgment which was done by substituted service, including a newspaper publication.
Eventually, the Court granted audience to the Plaintiff on 15th January 2019 to mount the witness box to establish the claims which it obtained inter