JUDGMENT OF ESSILFIE-BONZIE J.
This is an application by Adomthar Timber Industries Ltd. Takoradi (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) praying for an order of certiorari to quash the judgment of the Circuit Court, Sekondi dated 16 September 1988 for want of jurisdiction. The facts of the case, as can be gleaned from the affidavits filed, are that Afrangua Construction Works Ltd., Kumasi now the "interested" party, sued the defendants at the Circuit Court, Sekondi claiming the following reliefs:
"(1) The plaintiffs' claim against the defendants is for ¢1.5 million upon a National Investment Bank cheque No. 550268 dated 2 February 1988 drawn by the defendant.
(2) An order compelling the defendants to surrender one D7E Caterpillar now in the possession of the defendants.
(3) Mesne profits from 1 May 1988 to date of surrender of the said Caterpillar D7E at the rate of ¢55,000 per diem."
On 16 September 1988, the interested party (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) moved the circuit court for a default judgment. The application was granted. On 27 September 1988 the defendants were served with an entry of judgment, exhibit A. It is the default judgment of the circuit court given on 16 September 1988 which is being challenged.
[p.585]
The defendants did not exhibit a copy of the said judgment being sought to be quashed. They attached to their application the entry of judgment which was marked as exhibit A. Exhibit A shows that the alleged judgment of the circuit court was for the sum of ¢9,195,000. In his submission learned counsel for the applicants made reference to the Courts (Amendment) Law, 1987 (P.N.D.C.L. 191) and contended that since the jurisdiction of the circuit court is for claims not exceeding ¢5,000,000 the circuit judge exceeded his jurisdiction when he gave judgment for a claim of ¢9,195,000. The judgment is therefore ultra vires the jurisdiction of the circuit court and should be quashed.
Mr. Fosu, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, opposed the application. He submitted that the application before the court is incompetent in the sense that the judgment being complained of was not exhibited by the applicants. The entry of judgment which is the document attached by the applicants, is not a judgment of the court. It was prepared by the solicitor of the plaintiffs in the case and certiorari cannot lie to quash it. Mr. Forson conceded that a copy of the judgment being attacked was not attached to the application in compliance
