Court throws out Police … Says grounds outmoded, without merit

The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal, filed by the Ashanti Regional Police Commander, DCOP Kwaku Opare Ayesu Addo, to set aside a default judgment entered against him by the Mampong High Court, for refusing to pay some monies in respect of the purchase of a vehicle from one, Mr. Samuel Kwasi Ntiamoah, a native of Mampong, in the Ashanti Region.

The Regional Police Commander had prayed the court, presided over Her Lordship Mrs. Henrietta Abban, and two other judges, namely Justice Yaw Appau and Justice Victor Ofoe, for an extension of time, within which to file notice of appeal against the judgment.

The plaintiff/respondent, Mr. Samuel Ntiamoah, on October 16, 2006 filed a writ against the defendant/appellant at the Mampong High Court, claiming a total sum of GH¢1,300, being the remainder of a total cost of GH¢5,500, being the price of a Golf VW caravan, the Regional Police Commander bought from him.

The plaintiff averred, in his statement of claim, that somewhere in 2004, the defendant bought the VW with registration AS 1474W from him, at the cost of GH¢5,500, and made an initial payment of GH¢2,700.

He stated that the Police Commander further paid an additional amount of GH¢1,500, to him through his son Yaw Frimpong on May 2006, with a promisory note to pay the remaining GH¢1,300 within one month, but had intentionally refused to pay.

The plaintiff stated in his claim, that defendant used his position as a police officer, to intimidate him in his attempt to collect his money, warning him that he would cause his arrest, if he dared question him (DCOP Opare Addo) about the money, forcing him to issue a writ against the police officer, who was then the Police Commander for the Brong Ahafo Region.

The Mampong High Court, presided over by Justice Richard Quist, was compelled to enter judgment in default against him, for failing to enter appearance after being served with the plaintiff's writ.

The Police Chief reportedly returned the writ, and the statement of claim to the Registrar of the High Court, on the grounds that it was full of flaws, because the writ should have been directed through the Inspector General of Police, but not to be served personally to him. “I received your writ, which was in actual fact fraught with many mistakes,” claimed the DCOP then.

Consequently, an ex-parte motion for final judgment, filed by the counsel for the defendant/appellant, was rejected by the court, and instead the court on December 13, 2006, granted both reliefs sought by the plaintiff, for the liquidated claim of GH¢1,300, plus interest thereon.

Not satisfied with the High Court's ruling, and failing to execute the judgment passed by the presiding judge, Officer Opare Ayesu Addo filed an appeal to set aside the default judgment, and to grant him an extension of time, within which to file a notice of appeal, but the three court of Appeal judges dismissed the motion, on the grounds that it had no merit.

The court ruled that the provision that hitherto existed in the old rules of the High Court (1954) L.N 140 A; Order 8 rule8 (4), which required service of writs on Government officials, including the police, to be served through their heads, was no more the case, because that provision had been revoked with the passage of C.I.47 Under Order 7 of C.I.47 on “Service of Processes,” which stipulates that all such personnel shall be served personally, with writ like any other persons.

The Court of Appeal further ruled that since the appellant had admitted that indeed he owed the respondent, the claim by the appellant that the respondent had not handed over to him a duplicate key of the vehicle, and that he would only pay the balance after the duplicate key had been handed over to him, was not a defence at all, since the promisory note did not give any condition for the payment of the balance.

The three judges, unanimously, agreed that the court below was right in rejecting the ex-parte motion, filed by the Police Commander to set aside the default judgment, and subsequently dismissed the application.