MISYL ENERGY LIMITED vs WARREN OIL COMPANY LIMITED & ANOR
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP, JUSTICE GIFTY AGYEI ADDO, HIGH COURT JUDGE.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Defendants/Applicants sought to set aside a judgment and dismiss the suit based on claims of an invalid writ. Although they abandoned their motion to stay the execution, they argued that the writ was not signed by the issuing lawyer and did not state the lawyer's name. The court found that the records indicated the writ was signed by the lawyer, Hanifa Yahaya, and rejected the Applicants' claim, dismissing the application as lacking merit.
MOTION ON NOTICE TO STAY EXECUTION, SET ASIDE JUDGMENT AND DISMISS SUIT PURSUANT TO ORDER 2 RULE 7 (2) OF HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE)RULES, 2004 (C. I. 47).
SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS
The writ as issued was not signed either by the Plaintiff/Respondent or its lawyer, contrary to Order 7 Rule (2) of C. I. 47. Secondly, although the name of the chambers is stated, the name of the lawyer issuing the writ is not stated.
That being the case, the writ is a nullity and also the judgment premised upon it, is also a nullity.
The leg of the application that seeks to stay execution of the judgment is hereby abandoned.
Misyl Energy Co. Ltd. V. Warren Oil Co. & Malik Gambo (R) (Suit No. GJ/231/18) 1/3 RESPONSE OF COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT The Writ was signed by the lawyer who issued same.
Further, the name of the lawyer who issued the Writ was also stated.
R U L I N G
The Defendants/Applicants are in this Court per their motion on notice, to stay execution or to set aside the judgment of this Court dated 17th day of April, 2018, and dismiss the suit instituted on 13th February, 2018. The application was filed on 30th August, 2018. During the hearing of the application, Counsel for the Applicant abandoned the prayer to stay execution of the Judgment of the Court, which means that the instant application is limited to set aside the judgment of the Court and to dismiss the suit.
The gravamen of the application is that the writ of summons as issued was not signed by the lawyer who issued same.
Further, According to the Applicants, the name of the issuing lawyer, was not stated which also means that the writ was issued by a chamber contrary to Order 2 Rule 7 (2) of C. I. 47. The application has been resisted by the Respondent who states that the writ is regular having regard to the fact that the copy of the Court, as well as the Respondent’s copy were duly signed by the lawyer for the Plaintiff/Respondent herein.
Misyl Energy Co. Ltd. V. Warren Oil Co. & Malik Gambo (R) (Suit No. GJ/231/18) 2/3 The rules and case law have it that a writ is a nullity if it is not signed by the Plaintiff or the lawyer issuing the writ.
Besides, where the Writ merely bears the name of the chambers from which the issuing lawyer operates but does bear the name of the issuing lawyer, the writ is a nullity.
I have looked at the writ of summons filed 13th February, 2018, upon which judgment was delivered on 17th day of April, 2018, and I see, from