REBECCA NAADU NARTEY v. SOLOMON J. A. NARTEY _ 4 OTHERS

JUDGMENT

ASARE KORANG, J.A.:

8th October, 1996, the Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) filed a writ of summons in the High Court claiming the following reliefs against the Defendants/Appellants hereinafter referred to as the appellants)*

"1. An Order that the distribution of the estate of her deceased father by the administrator/administratrices be done in accordance with the existing law on intestate succession i.e. PNDCL 111.

2. An order for accounts for rents from storerooms and space surrounding her father's South Odorkor house.

3. An order for accounts for the proceeds from the sale of a Car and an uncompleted house at Bubuashie belonging to her late father.

4. An order for the cancellation of any title purported to have been granted to the purchaser(s) by the administrator/administratrices of the uncompleted house mentioned in (3) above.

5. An order on the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants/Appellants to remove the storerooms they constructed, in front of Plaintiff's apartment at Accra New Town".

The first four appellants are the administrators and administratrices of the estate of the late Moses Tetteh Afutu Nartey who was a practising barrister in Accra.

The 1st and 2nd Appellants are also the nephew and sister respectively of the deceased Moses Tetteh Afutu Nartey while the 3rd, 4th and 5th Appellants and the respondent are the children of the deceased. The respondent was the daughter of the deceased by his second wife.

After the respondent had sued out her writ of summons on 8th October, 1996 the appellants filed a belated Statement of Defence on 26th May, 1997.

This statement of Defence was not on the docket when default judgment was entered against the appellants on 24th July, 1997.

The default judgment was vacated on 20th July, 1998 when the court drew the attention of the appellant's Solicitor to the fact that the statement of Defence filed by the appellants did not disclose any defence at all. Prior to the vacation of the default judgment, the solicitor for the appellants had filed a motion on notice for leave to amend the appellants Statement of Defence.

There is nothing in the record to show that the motion for leave to amend was moved by the appellants but notwithstanding that omission, the respondent's solicitor on 12th January, 1999, filed a Reply to the proposed amended Statement of Defence together with a Summons for Directions. The court below took the Summons for Directions on 8th February, 1