GH - MADAM AKUA AMPONSAH vs SOLOMON OWUSU TABIRI & ANOR

This motion paper and the deposition in support with two annexures were field on 25/02/2019. The relief in the motion paper is a request for an order to set aside the service of a purported amended writ of summons.

The deposition in the affidavit in support is made the 1st Defendant, Solomon Owusu Tabiri.

He stated that, this Court had granted an orderfor substituted service of an amended writ.

And that Exhibit ‘EAA 1’and ‘EAA 2’ are the processes that came to his Notice.

In conclusion, he stated the writ of summons that came to his Notice isthe same as that writ filed on 07/01/2010. This Court has examined exhibit ‘EAA1’, it is the order for substituted Service of amended writ of summons and statement of claim.

The process was to be served on 2nd Defendant in the action, or his caretaker or workmen.

And Exhibit ‘EAA 2’ is the writ of summons.

On the face of the record, it had been field on 07/01/2010, it has Solomon Owusu Tabirialone as the Defendant.

In effect, the case of applicant herein is that the order of this Court thatthe writ be amended, to reflect the joinder of the 2nd Defendant(Oppong Adei Baffour) had not been complied with.

Counsel for 1st Defendant in his submissions in Court has stated, 1st Defendant has come upon this processes, which have been posted onthe property the subject matter of the suit.

On the other hand, the deposition, in opposition is that, the order madeby the Court has been complied with, and Exhibit ‘1’ is the amended writ and statement of claim.

And Exhibit ‘2’ is a search report, which showed that the order has be complied with, and service effected on 1st Defendant’s lawyer.

Counsel for Respondent also said the 2nd Defendant has been served by way of substituted service.

He argued the Exhibit ‘EAA 1’ annexed to the motion is strange and a surprise to them.

EVALUATION I have assessed the evidence led, and has come to the conclusion that, the writ of summons has been amended and served as ordered.

And that both Defendants have been duly served.

Secondly if Exhibit ‘EAA 2’ which is the old process that has been posted, the error cannot be attributed to the Respondent, but the bailiffs.

Thirdly, the Applicant has failed to establish that there has been an irregularity in the service of the writ on him, to merit the relief he is seeking.

The application shall be dismissed.

BY COURT: 1. The motion is dismissed.

2. Registrar shall repeat the posting of the order of substituted service granted by this Cour