RAPHAEL CUBAGE vs GHANA POLICE SERVICE per I.G.P. & ORS
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP, JUSTICE NICHOLAS M. C. ABODAKPI (J)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around the Defendants' application to set aside the default judgment entered on December 13, 2018, in favor of the Plaintiff. The Defendants had filed a Notice of Appearance months before the judgment, but this was not properly considered by the court. The Plaintiff's ex parte motions for interlocutory judgment violated natural justice principles by not being on notice despite the filed Notice of Appearance. Consequently, the court found the judgment void and set it aside, allowing the Defendants 14 days to file a defense.
The request to set aside Judgment in default of appearance entered on the 13th day of December, 2018 is the Relief sought in this application.
The main reason in support is that Defendants/Applicants [i. e. 1-8 and 16 and 17]have duly filed a Notice of Appearance prior to the date on which the said Judgment was entered.
EXHIBIT ‘AG1’ which is the Notice of Entry of Appearance, filed on 14th February, 2018, has been annexed as proof of the averments made.
And this Court has examined same.
The affidavit in opposition deposed to by Plaintiff, showed that he had filed two motions, one on 12th December, 2018 for Interlocutory judgment against 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 16th, and 17th Defendants for failure to enter defence.
And another on 15th February, 2018 for Judgment against Defendants except 14th Defendant who has filed Conditional Appearance.
He has annexed as EXHIBIT ‘RC1’ the motion ex parte for Interlocutory Judgment filed on 12th December, 2018 to be heard on 13th December, 2018. And EXHIBIT ‘RC2’ is the other whilst the motion.
While the motion that involves 1st to 8th Defendants and 17th Defendant, was for Interlocutory Judgment in default of defence, the second was Interlocutory Judgment in default of Appearance.
Both motions were made Ex parte.
On 13th December, 2018, Counsel for 14th Defendant who was in Court was heard on the application he had filed and was directed to file a supplementary deposition, if he so desired.
And Plaintiff/Respondent herein was also heard, when he stated that, 1st to 8th Defendants, 16 and 17 Defendants have been served with the Writ but have not filed any defence.
In my ruling on 13th December, 2018 when the motion was heard, I found that 1st Defendant had not been served as there was an affidavit of non-service on the record.
Thereafter, I expressed satisfaction about the fact that 2nd to 8th and 16th and 17th Defendants have been served with the writ.
Thereafter I entered Interlocutory Judgment in Plaintiff’s favour, and ordered that, he should file Witness Statements for evidence to be heard in proof of his claims. Having evaluated the submissions made today, and the affidavit in support of the motion to set the Judgment aside, and the affidavit in opposition, I have made a number of findings.
Firstly, Plaintiff’s motion was for Judgment to be entered in his favour against 1st to 8th, 16th and 17th Defendants in default of Defence.
Secondly that being the case, the motion should have