R U L I N G ON PRELIMINARY LEGAL OBJECTION TO WRIT OF SUMMONS AND STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Introduction By a writ of summons and statement of claim issued on 7th June 2017, the plaintiffs who identified themselves as ordinarily resident in the United States of America, United Kingdom and Canada respectively claimed certain reliefs against the defendants including declaration of title, recovery of possession, damages for trespass, perpetual injunction, costs including litigation costs and legal fees.
The defendants entered appearance to the writ on 9th August 2017. On 14th December 2017, the defendants filed a notice of preliminary legal objection objecting to the writ of summons and statement of claim on the ground that it is null and void as it offends Order 2 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004 (C. I. 47). On 8th February 2018, this court differently constituted ordered the parties to file their legal arguments in respect of the preliminary legal objection for ruling.
The parties duly filed their legal arguments.
Defendants’ Arguments It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs who are ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction instituted this action but however failed to provide their residential addresses as required by the rules of court.
It is counsel’s argument that under order 2 rule (3) (2) of CI 47, the occupational and residential address of the plaintiff rather than the address of the lawyer of the plaintiff shall be used on the writ.
He further argued that under order 2 rule 4 (2), for a writ that is filed on behalf of a plaintiff who is resident outside Ghana, it shall be indorsed with a statement of that fact and with the address of the person so resident.
Counsel argued that in the present case, no such address is endorsed on the writ of summons and as such per the decisions of the apex court of the land, such a writ is a nullity.
Counsel referred to the Supreme Court decision of Naos Holdings PSC v. Ghana Commercial Bank (2005-2006)SCGLR 407. Counsel argued that this omission by the plaintiffs in their writ of summons makes the writ incurably bad and it cannot be cured under the provisions of order 81. Counsel therefore prayed that the writ of summons and the statement of claim should be set aside.
Plaintiffs’ arguments Counsel for the plaintiffs while admitting that the address of the plaintiffs is not provided on the writ, however argued that it is a mere technicality and if the court applies the provisions of ord
