Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
March 22, 2019
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
RULING
Before me is an application for an order of the court to strike out the statement of defence of the defendant and for judgment to be entered for the plaintiff.
Counsel for the plaintiff/applicant contends that the defendant/respondent has put out a statement of defence which is entirely different from their case. According to counsel, the nature of the defence necessitated the filling of interrogatories in a bid to elicit further and better particulars from the defendant. Counsel submits that the defendant did not only file a belated response to the interrogatories but failed to answer some of the questions. In counsel’s estimation the answers provided were insufficient. Counsel cited Order 22 rule 6which gives the court the power to strike out the defence of a defendant and enter judgment in favour of a plaintiff if the defendant gives insufficient answers to the interrogatories. Counsel is therefore inviting the court to strike out the defendant’s defence as his belated response amounts to a violation of the order of the court and that the responses are insufficient. She submits that the responses must be disregarded.
The defendant/respondent is opposed to the application. Counsel for the respondent submits that the defendant complied with the order of the court to file the response to the interrogatories within 7 days after service. She submits that the interrogatories document was brought to her attention on 11/01/2019 by one Akwasi Opoku, the Office Manager of her firm. She refutes the notion that the document was served on her on 12/12/2018. Counsel also submits that they provided answers to the interrogatories and the fact that the answers are in conflict with the plaintiff’s case does not mean the same is insufficient. It is counsel’s submission that the response by the defendant shows that the court ought to go into the merits of the case.
Before I go into the merit of the application, I shall address the issue as to whether the service on a lawyer through an office manager or clerk of her firm constitutes good service on the lawyer.
Order 7 rule 2 of CI 47 deals with service of a document on a party. Indeed, service shall be effected personally on a person who is required to be served with a court process. It is, however, my considered pinion that in instances where a person through his conduct represents to the world that a particular person can receive a court process on his behalf, service on the second named person constitutes goo
AI Generated Summary
In this High Court ruling by Dr. Richmond Osei-Hwere, the plaintiff sought an order to strike out the defendant’s statement of defence and enter judgment, arguing that the defendant’s case diverged from the plaintiff’s and that responses to interrogatories were belated and insufficient under Order 22 rule 6 of CI 47. The defendant opposed, disputing the service date and maintaining that responses were provided and merely conflicted with the plaintiff’s case. Addressing service, the court applied agency principles and estoppel under the Evidence Act, finding that counsel’s office manager/clerk had repeatedly accepted service and that service of interrogatories on 12/12/2018 was proper. Although the defendant’s responses were late, the court held the breach was procedural and did not justify striking out the defence under Order 81 rule 1. The court concluded the interrogatory answers amplified a genuine dispute requiring trial and rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to obtain summary judgment, dismissing the application without costs.