REV. STEPHEN K. O. CHEMEL VS KWEKU SARFO
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE K. A. GYIMAH
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around an appeal against the refusal of a district court to set aside its order for substituted service of a formal decree and a letter from plaintiff's counsel. The High Court upheld the district court's order for substituted service of the formal decree as it complied with court rules. However, the High Court set aside the order allowing substituted service of the counsel's letter as it was not a recognized court process. The appeal also addressed whether the Teriwajah decision on solicitor licensing had retrospective effect, concluding it did not apply to the present case as the original action was initiated before the Teriwajah decision.
Introduction This is an appeal from a ruling of Her Worship Emelia K. Abruquah (Mrs. ) sitting at the Amasaman Magistrate Court delivered on 10th December 2013. A summary of the facts that led to the said ruling is provided below.
Summary of Facts The plaintiff/respondent (plaintiff) instituted an action against the defendant/ appellant(defendant) at the Amasaman District Court claiming certain reliefs including declaration of title and recovery of possession.
Judgment was delivered on 24th July 2012 by Her Worship Mrs. Abena Oppong Adjin-Doku.
Although she held that none of the parties had been able to prove title over the land in dispute, she further held that the plaintiff was the one in possession of the property and she therefore awarded damages of Five Hundred cedis in favour of the plaintiff.
The defendant’s late application for leave to appeal was refused.
The plaintiff therefore set into motion the execution processes of the district court by applying for a formal decree to issue and this was duly issued.
Counsel for the plaintiff had earlier on 21st November 2012 written a letter addressed to the defendant giving him notice to remove all his items on the property and to vacate the land.
A copy of the letter can be found on page 122 of the record.
From the record, the plaintiff found it difficult serving the formal decree on the defendant.
He therefore applied to the court to serve the formal decree on the defendant by substituted service which application was granted together with an order to serve the letter written by counsel for the plaintiff on the defendant by substituted service.
When the order was served on the defendant, counsel for the defendant brought an application to have the order and the service of the order on the defendant set aside.
The said application was refused by the court and this has resulted in this present appeal.
Purely interlocutory appeal It must be noted at the outset that this is not an appeal against the final judgment of the district court sitting at Amasaman but it is purely an interlocutory appeal against the refusal of the district court to set aside its order of 1st February 2013. It is rather unfortunate that in the reckoning of the time within which to appeal and the preparation of the appeal records, the matter has been treated as an appeal against the final judgment of the district court.
I will in my judgment treat the appeal for what it really is – an interlocutory appeal.
Grounds of Appea