FRANCIS ANOKYE v. DOMINIC ANANE

This case involves an application by the plaintiff to strike out the defendant's statement of defence and enter judgment in their favor, based on alleged belated and insufficient responses to interrogatories. The court addressed three main issues: the validity of service through an office manager, the consequences of delayed responses to interrogatories, and the sufficiency of the defendant's answers. The court ruled that service on the defendant's lawyer through the office manager was valid, as the lawyer had previously allowed this practice without objection, creating an agency relationship. The court applied the principle of estoppel, preventing the lawyer from denying the authority of the office manager to receive documents. Regarding the delayed response to interrogatories, the court acknowledged a procedural breach but held that it did not affect the substance of the defence. The court emphasized that substance should prevail over form, especially when strict adherence to form would undermine substantial justice. The court found that the defendant's answers to the interrogatories, while contradicting the plaintiff's claims, were not insufficient. Instead, they highlighted the genuine dispute between the parties, necessitating a full trial. The court dismissed the application, stating that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant had no reasonable defence to the action. The court viewed the application as an attempt to obtain summary judgment under the guise of non-compliance with procedural rules. This ruling underscores the importance of focusing on the substantive issues in a case rather than procedural technicalities, and the court's reluctance to strike out defences without clear justification.