KING DAVID THOMPSON VS SIATA ISSIFU THOMPSON

This is an application by the Judgment Debtor to set aside the judgment of this court dated 29th April 2021.

The Judgment Creditor herein after referred to as the Petitioner filed a petition against the Judgment Debtor herein after referred to as the Respondent, said petition was served on the Respondent on the 24th of April 2017. The Respondent entered appearance and filed a cross petition on the 24th of May 2017. On the 6th of December, 2017 the petitioner filed a reply to petitioner’s answer.

As per the records, the Respondent participated in the trial to its conclusion and parties were ordered to file written submissions. On the 25th day of March 2021, the records show that the Petitioner filed his written submission, but Respondent failed to file hers. That notwithstanding, the Court made orders directing the Petitioner to serve hearing notice on the Respondent and insisted it will proceed with the writing of the judgment. This court adjourned the matter to the 29th of April 2021 for judgment and on the said date the court delivered its judgment. The judgment was delivered in the absence of the Respondent though the Petitioner served the hearing notice on her lawyer.

It is this judgment that the Respondent wants this court to set aside. The Respondent said she only got to know of this judgment when she was informed in May 2022 by her church that the Petitioner has applied to re-marry.

According to her neither her counsel nor herself was served with any notice of the delivery of the judgment. The Respondent says though a search at the registry of the court showed that notice of the delivery of the judgment was served on another Lawyer, Osei Akoto. She said that lawyer is neither her lawyer nor her agent. She argues that the rules of natural justice have been violated by serving the wrong lawyer. She says the failure to serve her notice of the delivery of the judgment has occasioned injustice and rendered the whole proceedings a nullity and believes the court has an inherent jurisdiction to set aside the said judgment.

In his response the Petitioner stated that during the proceedings the Applicant got pregnant for another man and stayed away and now that she has delivered she has filed this application to torment him again. He finds the present application an abuse of the process since the trial had ended and the presence of the court was not necessary.

The Petitioner contends the Respondent appointed Micheal Owusu- Awuah as her lawyer. He said th