Before me is an application to set aside judgment in default of appearance. However, when the matter came up for hearing, counsel for the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) raised a preliminary legal objection to the propriety of theof the motion.
Counsel argued that the application is an abuse of the court process because the1st and 2nddefendants/applicants (hereinafter called applicants) are in contempt of court in respect of the same matter and can therefore not be heard by the court. She submitted that the parties resorted to self-help to prevent the execution process relating to the matter and that a person in contempt of court cannot be heard until the contempt is purged. Counsel cited the following cases in support of her assertion:
Hardkinson v. Hardkinson (1952) 2 All ER 367; Republic v. Bekwai Traditional Council exparte Aboraa (1994/95) GBR 574 at Holding 5; and Danquah v. Amartey& Another (1994/95) GBR 848 at 849.
In response to the preliminary l…