LUCY DUMENU & ORS VS KWAME KORKUSTE & ORS

By their writ of summons dated 9 December 2019, the Plaintiffs claim against the defendants as follows: -

1. A declaration that the Plaintiff’s family is the lawful owners of the disputed property located at Blave and bounded as follows: On one side by the Agbana.

On another side by the Agbana Family property.

On yet another side by the Agbana family property On the last side by the Agbana family property

2. Recovery of possession.

3. Injunction 4. General damages 5. Cost(s)Upon service of the Plaintiffs’ writ of summons and statement of claim on the 1st defendant, he entered appearance on 27 January 2020 and subsequently filed a defence denying the claim of the Plaintiffs in its entirety.

He did not counter claim.

The Plaintiffs were not able to effect personal service of the writ of summons and statement of claim on the 2nd to 5th defendants.

On 21 October 2020 they applied for and obtained an order for substituted service of the writ of summons and statement of claim on 2nd to 5th Defendants.

The order was drawn up and carried out.

The 2nd to 5th defendants did not enter appearance.

The Plaintiffs did not proceed in accordance with Order 10 Rule 6(1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2002 C. I. 47 against the 2nd to 5th defendants who failed to enter appearance.

The rule provides as follows: Where the Plaintiff makes a claim of a description not mentioned in rules 1 to 4 against a defendant , and the defendant fails to file appearance, the plaintiff may, after the time limited for appearance and upon filing an affidavit proving due service of the writ and statement of claim on defendant, proceed with the action as if the defendant had filed appearance.

The Plaintiffs thus proceeded against the 1st defendant alone in this matter.

I guess the reason for not proceeding against them was because according to the Plaintiffs, it was the 1st defendant who allegedly sold the lands to the 2nd to 5th defendants.

Indeed the 1st defendant in his defence admitted selling the lands to 2nd to 5th defendants and claimed that the land belongs to his Kwakuste family and not Plaintiffs’ Dumenu family.

So the real battle is between the Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant.

CASE FOR PLAINTIFFS The case of the Plaintiffs is that the 1st Plaintiff is the Head and lawful representative of the Dumenu Family of Hohoe, and she sues in that capacity.

The 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs are principal members of the said family.

According to Plaintiffs, the 1st Defe