GEORGE APPIAH & ANOR VS DR. T. A. OSAE & ORS

The plaintiffs, per their counsel, commenced the instant action against the defendants on 19th October, 2015 by filing a writ of summons and the accompanying statement of claim for the following reliefs: (a) Declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being at Otinshie/Bedzin-Accra in the Greater Accra Region and known as Plot Nos. 134 and 135.

(b) An order for recovery of possession.

(c) An order cancelling or annulling any conveyance done in respect of the subject plots in favour of the 3rd and 4th defendants and anything done pursuant to the said conveyance.

(d) An order for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, workmen, assigns and servants from interfering with the plaintiffs’ title and ownership to the subject plots.

The affidavit of service on record shows that the writ of summons and the statement of claim could not be served on defendants, except 2nd defendant who was served with the processes on 21st October, 2015. The plaintiff subsequently discontinued the action against 1st defendant with liberty to come back and applied for leave to serve 3rd and 4th defendants per substituted service which was granted.

3rd and 4th defendants were accordingly served with the writ of summons, the statement of claim and the order for substituted service per substituted service on 22nd December, 2015. An affidavit of posting dated 23rd December, 2015 was filed to that effect.

2nd defendant entered appearance on 29th October, 2015 and went on to file his statement of defence on 9th November, 2015 but 3rd and 4th defendants failed to enter appearance so on 29th January, 2016 the plaintiff filed a motion for an order to sign interlocutory judgment against 3rd and 4th defendants for defaulting to enter appearance or/in the alternative to set down the case for hearing in terms of the accompanying affidavit.

Once again, the said defendants were served with the motion paper and the supporting affidavit per substituted service but that neither prompted them to file appearance nor file an affidavit in opposition.

The said motion was granted on 4th February, 2016 and the case adjourned for the plaintiffs to prove their title to the disputed land against 3rd and 4th defendants. Hearing notice was ordered to be served on 3rd and 4th defendants.

Once again, the order of interlocutory judgment and hearing notice were served on the said defendants per substituted service. In spite of this, 3rd and 4th defendants