ADU POKU v. D. H. L.

JUDGMENT

LAMPTEY, J.A.:

The plaintiff respondent Ex-Warrant Officer Adu Poku by his counsel obtained leave of the High Court, Accra presided over by Armah, J. on 29th May, 1992, to issue a writ of summons accompanied by a Statement of Claim against the defendant appellant company and for a further order to serve same out of the jurisdiction. The appellant Co., which is based in London on being duly served with process on 6th July, 1992, instructed Solicitors in Accra to act on his behalf. On 25th August, 1992, solicitors for the appellant company filed a notice of motion for an order discharging the order made by Armah, J. The application was resisted by the plaintiff. It was heard by Akoto Bamfo (Mrs.) J, who dismissed it. The appellant company was aggrieved by the Ruling dismissing the application and appealed to this court.

Before I proceed to deal with the instant appeal on the merits, I must draw attention to what I believe to be an administrative lapse which must and ought to be corrected. I find that in respect of this application the Registrar opened two separate and distinct case dockets. The first docket bears the No.109/92 and the second is No. 1396/92. I noticed that suit No. 109/92 dealt with the application for leave to issue and serve the writ out of the jurisdiction and all matters connected therewith including the application to discharge Armah, J.’s order. This suit No. 109/92 is the case on appeal before this court. Suit No. 1396/92 is the substantive action between the parties. The opening of two separate and distinct case dockets had led to the exclusion from the record of appeal the pleadings in the action which would be found in the docket No. 1396/92, and therefore not part of this appeal record.

I have made the above observation because the record of appeal does not contain the entry of appearance under protest by the appellant. One of the complaints made in this appeal contred around the rules governing the entry of appearance under protest. This court would have been better placed to deal with this compliant if the record of appeal contained all the documents and pleadings in that matter. I find that the affidavit in support of the application to set aside the service of the writ gave the date of the entry of appearance under protest as 30th July, 1992. I have no reason to disbelieve that information. The significance of this date would become obvious when I come to deal with the complaint that the application to discharge th