JOSEPH NII TORGBOR OBODAI II VS DREAM PROPERTIES LIMITED

Per the instant Application the Plaintiff/Applicant is praying the Court for leave to issue Writ of Possession.

On the service of the Application on Counsel for the Defendant/Respondent, they wrote to the Court standing among others that they are no longer representing the Respondent for which reason the Application should be returned to the Registry.

In Alliance Marine Service v M/V James Owners & DWC Exploration and Production Co. Ltd. [2015/16] 1 SCGLR 356, per holding “1” the Supreme Court held:

“ ‘1’ held, overruling the submission by Counsel for the Defendants/Appellants/ Respondents for the follow reasons: (1) even though rule 14(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I. 16), had provided that the Form 6 should be served on the parties to the appeal, the word “party” had been defined in rule 82, the interpretation section of C.1. 16, to include “a party to an appeal or any other proceedings and Counsel of that party.” The definition of “party” to include Counsel meant that in certain situations or circumstances, Counsel would be treated as a party. Each case should thus be treated as unique for it was not the intention of the rule to treat or regard Counsel as party for all purposes. However, where Counsel, who had filed the Notice of Appeal, had provided his address as that of service of his client, he or she would be deemed to have placed himself or herself in the position of a party for purposes of service of process per that address. It would therefore be no defence to say that Counsel had no instructions to accept service since the instruction was embodied in the address provided in the Notice of Appeal. There was undeniable evidence that the Application by the Plaintiff/ Respondent/Applicant had been served on the Appellants/Respondents’ Solicitors Kuenyehia & Nutsukpui who, on that Court’s record, were still the Solicitors for the Defendants/ Appellants /Respondents. Thus the service was effective for all purposes and they had no justification to return same to the Registry. The Application was thus regular and ripe for hearing. Wright v King [1846] 9 Beav 161; 50 ER 305; and Davidson v Leslie [1845] 9 Beav 104; 50 ER 282 cited.”

In the case under consideration the Respondent dissatisfied with the judgment of this case caused the same lawyers to file Notice of Appeal and an Application for Stay of Execution.

There is no evidence before me that they have filed notice of withdrawal for their representation for the Respondent.

In the