ERIC OSEI AMANKWAH v. CHARLOTTE ASEIDU NAA ABENA

AVRIL LOVELACE-JOHNSON (J.A.):

This appeal is against the ruling of the High court delivered on 14th March 2016 by which the said court refused to set aside its earlier order relisting a writ of summons and statement of claim granted upon a motion ex parte.

At the trial court the Defendant based her application on the position that by the motion being brought ex parte she had been deprived of an opportunity to be heard. This deprivation being a breach of the audi auteram partem rule, the said ruling and all proceedings taken thereafter were a nullity.

In this court, the Defendant, now Appellant bases her appeal on the following six grounds

1. The Learned Judge failed to appreciate that the purported Motion Ex parte, which at the same time doubled as a MOTION ON NOTICE, in substance filed on 20/11/2015 for re-listment of the suit filed on 20/11/2015 prepared and signed by a CLERK by name ELLYN ASIAMAH of Crown Legal Bureau Accra, who is not a Lawyer is void and also constituted and amounted to Statutory infractions of Section 8(10 of the Legal Professional Act 1960 (Act 32).

2. The Learned Judge failed to consider and comment on the fact that the “Motion” for Re-listment of the suit mentioned supra was incompetent and ought not have been heard as an Ex parte Motion to re-list the suit.

3. The Learned Judge has not set the suit down for either pre-trial or case management conference thus the ongoing proceedings is premature and sins against “Case Management” provisions of High Court (Civil Proceedings) (Amendment) Rules, 2014 (C. I. 87) 7a(1) (b), 7a(2).

4. The Learned Judge on 2nd December, 2015, lacked jurisdiction to hear the Motion for Re-listment of the suit, which was on notice, in context, but was not served on the Defendant/Appellant.

5. The Learned Judge appears to have misdirected herself as to the issues before her when she held among others.

“the grant of the Ex parte-Application did not affect Defendant adversely in any way. The grant of the application was not against Defendant but in her favour as well. It re-listed her Counter-claim that had been struck out. No injustice was occasioned thereby. In the light of the above, the instant motion is refused.”

6. Further Grounds of Appeal shall be filed upon receipt of the record of proceedings.

No further grounds were filed so the sixth ground is deemed to have been abandoned.

In the course of his written submissions, in relation to ground 1, counsel states that it was a clerk who