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
Misyl Energy Co. Ltd. sued Warren Oil Co. and Malik Gambo in the Ghana High Court. Following a judgment dated 17 April 2018, the defendants/applicants sought, by motion filed on 30 August 2018, to stay execution, set aside the judgment, and dismiss the suit under the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47). At the hearing, they abandoned the stay execution limb. They argued the writ of summons was a nullity because it was not signed by the plaintiff or its lawyer and did not state the issuing lawyer’s name. The plaintiff/respondent countered that the writ was properly signed and identified. Justice Gifty Agyei Addo examined the court’s records and found the writ had been signed by the plaintiff’s lawyer and named the issuing lawyer as Hanifa Yahaya. Emphasizing that court records constitute the proceedings, the court held that the writ was regularly issued, its jurisdiction properly invoked, dismissed the application for lack of merit, and made no order as to costs.
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