REV. NANA ADJEI NTOW v. ERNEST SIAW & ORS
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- E. K. Ayebi (Presiding) JA
- Irene C. Larbi, (Mrs.) JA
- Angelina M. Domakyaareh (Mrs.), JA
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Human rights Law
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appeal arises from a high court ruling where the appellant's motion to eject the respondents from his property was dismissed. The appellant claimed procedural irregularities and lack of proper service. The appellate court noted the procedural failures and ruled that the high court's proceedings were a nullity, remitting the case for rehearing by a differently constituted court.
AYEBI, J.A:
1. This appeal is against the ruling of a Sunyani High Court dated Wednesday, 17th April 2013.
2. On 4th March 2013, applicant/appellant brought an application under Order 67 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004(C. I. 47) and under Article 33 of the 1992 Constitution praying for an order of ejectment against the 1st to 5th respondents/respondents for refusing to vacate his property,House No. D 10/2, Central Area, Sunyani.
The specific reliefs the applicant/appellant (hereinafter called applicant) prayed for against the 1st to 5th respondents/respondents (hereinafter called respondents) are:
(i) An order declaring that by challenging/denying the applicants title to the house, the respondents have forfeited their right to stay as tenants in the house.
ii) An order ejecting the respondents from the storerooms they occupy in the house.
iii) An order on the respondents to pay the arrears of rent they owe to the applicant.
3. We do not intend to recapitulate the facts as averred in support of the application in detail.
The gist of the applicants case is that since the respondents have consistently refused to recognize him as the owner of the house and for that matter their landlord,he was by the motion seeking the protection of his fundamental human rights under Article 18(1) and (2) of the 1992 Constitution to own property and not to be subjected to interference by the respondents.
4. On the same day this motion was filed, applicant filed a motion ex-parte praying the court to order the respondents to pay thearrears of rent into court pending the final determination of thematter.
On the return date of this motion which was 5th March 2013, the court ordered applicant to come on notice and adjourned the matter sine die.
5. On 27th March 2013, at about 12 noon, a search conducted by the applicant showed that although respondents were served with the motion on notice on 11th and 12th March 2013, none of them had filed a response to it.
It is on record however that at about 12.45pm on the same 27/03/2013, the 1st to 5th respondents filed a joint affidavit in opposition sworn to by the 2nd respondent on their behalf.
Attached to the affidavit in opposition were several exhibits covering pages 36 to 62 of the record of appeal.
They are mainly writs issued by the applicant against the 1st to 5th respondents with the same reliefs as in this motion which suits appear to be pending in those courts.
6. On 16th April 2013, a motio