SOWAH J.A.: On 19 November 1975, we reversed the ruling of the High Court, Kumasi, in which it dismissed the application of the appellant (hereafter called the defendant) to set aside a ruling that a trial should proceed in his absence and the judgment obtained in his absence at the trial where he did not appear and ordered that the case be heard de novo and that the defendant should pay the costs of the abortive trial.
We now proceed to give our reasons for so doing. On 26 February 1970 the respondent (hereafter called the plaintiff) took out a writ of summons claiming:
(1) The cost for repairs of house No. O.O. 32, Odum Street, Kumasi, estimated to be N ¢1,250.00 as under the agreement made between the plaintiff and the defendant on 1 April 1968.
(2) The rent for the said premises from May 1969 to February [1973], both dates inclusive at N ¢326.00 per month as under the said agreement.
(3) Mesne profits.”
The defendant entered appearance by his solicitor; thereafter the usual processes …