<p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><h2 class="ql-align-center">JUDGMENT </h2><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>ADJEI, JA</strong></p><p>In suit No. Bmisc 99/2011, the plaintiff instituted the action against the defendant seeking for the following reliefs: </p><p> </p><p>“1. An Order of the Court setting aside the judgment of the District Court Kaneshie dated 14th December, 2005 on the grounds of fraud. </p><p> </p><p> 2. A further Order declaring the judgment against the plaintiff herein (then 1st defendant) dated 14th December, 2005 void on the grounds that he was not heard breaching the audi alteram rule thus depriving the Court of the jurisdiction to pronounce judgment in the matter”. </p><p> </p><p>The plaintiff whose first relief is to impugn the District Court Judgment on grounds of fraud gave three particulars of fraud. The particulars of fraud committed by the defendant were given as follows: </p><p> </p><p>“a. The defendant (then plaintiff) knew that the plaintiff (then 1st defendant) was in lawful custody as the date and time she took judgment against the defendants in their absence. </p><p> </p><p>b. The defendant (the plaintiff) concealed the fact t…</p>