2018
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Court of Appeal decision concerns an interlocutory appeal from the High Court, Agona Swedru, where the plaintiffs (a church) sought default judgment against several defendants and the trial court struck out the 3rd–8th defendants as unnecessary parties. The plaintiffs’ underlying claims were for declaration of title to land at West Kasoa/Odupong Kpehe, damages for trespass, recovery of possession, and an order directing the Lands Commission to expunge “Mustapha Plus” and replace it with the church. Justice Irene C. Larbi held that default judgment under Order 13 rule 6 is conditional on the plaintiff “appearing entitled,” and that non-service on the 5th and 6th defendants precluded default. Because the reliefs were inseparable from the main title dispute involving the 1st and 2nd defendants, interlocutory judgment would risk inconsistent outcomes and violate Order 1 rule 1(2)’s goal of complete resolution. The court restored the 4th–8th defendants to the suit, but refused default judgment as premature, allowing the appeal in part.
IRENE CHARITY LARBI (MRS) J.A.
This interlocutory appeal emanates from the ruling of the High Court, Agona Swedru dated 12th November, 2015.
The brief facts are these;
By a writ filed at the Registry of the High Court, Agona Swedru on 30th January, 2014, the Plaintiffs sought the following reliefs against the Defendants:
a. A declaration of title to all that piece or parcel of a land
situate lying and being at West Kasoa i.e. Kasoa Odupong Kpehe in the Central Region of Ghana which land is more particularly described in their indenture dated 10th June 1986 and registered as CR 378/91.
b. General Damages for trespass.
c. Recovery of possession.
d. An order of the Honourable Court directed at the 9th
Defendant to expunge the name of Mustapha Plus from its records and replace it with that of the Plaintiffs Church.
f. Any further order or orders as this Honourable Court would
deem fit in the circumstances.
Accompanying the writ was a 16 paragraph statement of claim which set out the case of the Plaintiffs.
Upon service of the writ as well as the statement of claim, the 1st, 2nd and 8th Defendants entered conditional appearance through their lawyer, Oliver Atsu Ababa Esq. of Abada & Co.
On 10th February, 2014 the 4th Defendant entered appearance for and on behalf of himself.
On 20th February, 2014 Lawyer Oliver Atsu Abada Esq. of Abada and Co. entered appearance for and on behalf of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants. Subsequently the said Lawyer filed a Statement of Defence and Counter-claim on behalf of the 1st to 9th Defendants.
On 13th day of November, 2015 pursuant to an application filed by the Plaintiff for an interlocutory judgment in default of defence against 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants, the learned Trial Judge after hearing arguments from the Lawyer for the Plaintiffs, dismissed the said application and further proceeded to strike out the names of the 3rd to 8th Defendants from the suit. Hence this interlocutory appeal which is a complaint against the whole ruling.
The ground of appeal as amended pursuant to leave of this court on 31st January, 2017 are as follows:-
“a. The Ruling was against the weight of the evidence.
b. The learned Trial Judge erred in law by failing to enter
Interlocutory Judgment in default of defence against the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants.
b(i) That the learned Trial Judge erred in law in summarily
striking out the names of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th , 7th and 8th
Defenda