GH - S. K. APPAH v. UNILEVER (GH.) LTD

JUDGMENT

TWUMASI, J.A.

This is an appeal against the ruling delivered by the High Court, Tamale on the 31st March, 1998. The facts show that on the 24th December, 1992 the respondents, Unilever (Ghana) Limited instituted legal proceedings against the appellant, a business agent and tenant to the respondents for the recovery of an amount ¢4,992,248.40 said to be arrears of rent and value of goods supplied by the respondents under what was described as a deedership Agreement between the parties. The appellant counter claimed for reliefs comprising damages for breach of the said agreement. At the close of pleadings, summons for directions was duly taken and a date was fixed for the hearing of the suit.

On the due date the case was further adjourned at the instance of the respondents. Several adjournments were subsequently made because of the persistent absence of counsel for the respondents.

The record shows that on the numerous occasions that the court yielded to adjournments, service of hearing notices had been effected either on the solicitors of the respondents or their representative at Tamale, to be precise, the Manager of Unilever (Ghana) Limited in that regional capital. Matters came to a head when the court apparently having exhausted all its indulgence in the conduct of the respondents, dismissed their claim on the 17th April 1996 leaving the counter-claim for hearing on the 23 May, 1996. An order was made that the Registrar caused a hearing notice to be served on the respondents. On the due date both counsel for the parties were absent and the case was adjourned sine die. The case was relisted for hearing on the 29th April, 1997. Notices were ordered to be served on the parties and their counsel to appear on the 26th May, 1997.

Counsel for the respondents then filed a motion for relistment of the case but never pursued it. Amidst this bizarre state of affairs afflicting the fate of the lawsuit, Counsel for the respondents wrote a letter dated 9th May, 1997 to the Deputy Registrar of the court copied to their Tamale representative informing them that he had withdrawn his services as from that date. This prompted the respondents’ representative by a letter dated 20th May 1997 to apply to the court for an adjournment while he arranged for the services of a new Counsel.

The court obliged and adjourned the hearing to the 18th June, 1997. The respondents had been served on 2nd June with the hearing notice but on the due date they failed to attend c

JUDGMENT

TWUMASI, J.A.

On the due date the case was further adjourned at the instance of the respondents. Several adjournments were subsequently made because of the persistent absence of counsel for the respondents.

The court obliged and adjourned the hearing to the 18th June, 1997. The respondents had been served on 2nd June with the hearing notice but on the due date they failed to attend c

S. K. APPAH v. UNILEVER (GH.) LTD

Areas of Law