JUDGMENT OF LUTTERODT J.
On 22 November 1989 the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) per his lawful attorney, Raguel Tena-Urutia, issued this writ against the defendant-applicant (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) for the sum of $20,000 and interest on that amount. After entering a conditional appearance, the applicant now prays for (1) an order setting aside the service of the writ of summons and statement of claim; and (2) an order dismissing the said action.
The main grounds upon which this instant application, brought under Order 12, r. 24 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), is founded is contained in paragraphs (13) and (14) of the supporting affidavit. These are that:
"(13) The defendant being at the time of the issue of the writ a member of the diplomatic corps, is under the provisions of the Vienna Convention immune from the jurisdiction of our courts.
(14) Since the contract was made not in Ghana, but in Spain, this court is not seised with jurisdiction to determine this dispute."
The first issue I have been asked to determine, and in favour of the applicant, is that he is indeed an accredited diplomat. I think this issue arose as a result of paragraph (6) of the respondent's affidavit in opposition. When the applicant deposed in his affidavit paragraphs (1) and (2) that he is the Chancellor of the Embassy of the Kingdom of Spain and further that he is an accredited diplomat, the respondent's reaction was that he was "not in a position to admit or deny paragraphs (1) and (2) [p.146] of the affidavit in support of the application and shall put the applicant to strict proof of the averments therein."
I would, however, have no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that the applicant is an accredited diplomat. Exhibit 1 tendered by the applicant at the hearing confirms the full diplomatic status of the applicant both when he was an administrative officer and when he was promoted to the rank of Chancellor of the Embassy.
In order to disabuse the mind of this court or for that matter any other inquirer as to whether or not a mere written letter sent under the hand of an officer of our foreign ministry is sufficient proof of the applicant's diplomatic status, his counsel has urged that we examine the case of Armon v. Katz [1976] 2 G.L.R. 115 at 122-123, C.A. and we shall come to no other conclusion.
In that case, an action for damages was instituted against the first defendant,
