EMELIA LAMPTEY v. JUSTICE KWASI LETSU AND OKPELOR SOWAH DIN FAMILY

This Ruling is in respect of Motion on Notice to set aside the Writ of Summons. This

was filed for and on behalf of 1st Defendant herein Justice Kwasi Letsu by his Counsel.

In the Supporting Affidavit 1st Defendant/Applicant avers that Plaintiff/Respondent

who instituted this action per her Lawful Attorney has opted to omit her address which

is contrary to the rules of High Court Civil Procedure Rule (C. I. 47).

In Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Affidavit in Support, 1st Defendant avers as follows;

Paragraph 10

I am advised by Counsel and I verily believe same to be true that purporting to

cure the incurable effect which makes the Writ and all other subsequent

processes fild by Plaintiff therefrom void, Plaintiff caused his lawyer to file an

Amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim on April 4th 2022.

Paragraph 11

I am advised by Counsel and verily believe same to be true that this requirement

of law is so fundamental that anything contrary renders a Writ incurable,

defective, null and void and same cannot be saved by an amendment.

In her Affidavit in Opposition, Plaintiff/Respondent states in Paragraphs 6 and 7 of her

Affidavit in Opposition, as follows:

Paragraph 6

That I am advised by Counsel and verily believe same to be true that in effect,

the 1st Defendant/Applicant’s motion is that Plaintiff/Respondent fail to disclose her

address in the United States of America, as required by the rules of this Honourable

Court and therefore the said Writ of Summons is a nullity and void.

Paragraph 7

That I am advised by Counsel and verily believe same to be true that it is not all

failure to comply with the rules of this Honourable Court that renders the

process a nullity and/or void.

Paragraph 8

That I am further advised and believe same to be true that, the failure of the

Plaintiff to provide the foreign address on the Writ of Summons is an

irregularity that ought to be cured under the rules of this Honourable Court since

the irregularity is not fundamental.

Respective Counsel for parties made their legal arguments in support of their parties’

positions making references to relevant statues and case laws. The issue for

determination is whether or not this Application ought to be granted. The mainstay of

this Application is that the Plaintiff has failed to disclose her address in the United

States of America and that is fatal and cannot be cured.

Counsel for 1st Defendant/Applicant contends that this omission is so fundament