DAKAR LTD. v. INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD. AND ANOTHER

JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.

This is apparently a simple application for substituted service. Within my experience, however, it is a novel application, involving, as it does, substituted service against a limited liability company. In my view, it also gives rise to some complex issues which I propose to canvass and so although in normal applications for substituted service the facts founding the claim are strictly not necessary, in this case it seems it is necessary to give an indication of the facts.

By their specially indorsed writ of summons, the plaintiffs claim against the defendant-company ¢4,402,700 being the balance of the price of goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff-company to the defendant-company,

In this motion ex parte, the plaintiff-company on 21 April 1980 moved this court for an order of substituted service and for such further order or orders as to this court may seem just. By an affidavit in support of the motion, a clerk in the chambers of the solicitor of the plaintiffs has deposed as follows:

"(1) Having been directed to serve direct on the above named defendants with a copy of the writ of summons in this action which appeared to have been regularly issued out under the seal of the Supreme Court of Judicature by the above named plaintiffs against the above named defendants and dated 15 January 1980, which said writ and copy were subscribed and indorsed in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules of the Supreme Court, and a true copy of which said writ is now produced and shown to me marked A, I did on 23 January 1980, in the company of the court bailiff, Ebenezer Abotchi Mensah, attend for the purpose of serving a copy of the said writ at the registered offices of the company of the defendants, being at the Light Industrial Area, Labadi, in the city of Accra. That on inquiring as of the management of the defendant-company, I was informed by persons whom we believed to be employees of the said defendant-company that there was no manager or person of authority at the said place to receive the said writ. That we stated to the said persons there, the nature of our business and told them that we had called to serve the said defendant-company with a copy of the said writ and that we will call again for that purpose at the office of the defendants on 22 February 1980.

[p.457]

(2) That we did accordingly attend at the above address on 22 February 1980, for the purpose aforesaid of serving the writ and then again none of the employees