JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.A.
The plaintiff-respondent Emmanuel Lartey sued the defendants-appellants for damages under the Civil Liability Act, 1963 (Act 176). He issued his writ on 11 June 1970 but made no attempt thereafter to serve the defendants. The writ was struck out on a registrar’s summons taken on 28 January 1972. The respondent’s solicitor then sought a reinstatement of his writ, praying that the court should exercise its discretion in the plaintiff’s favour by restoring the suit to the lists.
The grounds urged on behalf of the plaintiff were:
(1) The plaintiff’s ill-health which necessitated his travelling to Northern Ghana, and prevented him from pursuing his action with deligence.
(2) Negotiations with the defendants' insurance company which continued for some time before falling through.
(3) The defendants’ censorious conduct in evading service.
(4) The service of a copy of the writ on the insurance company.
The last two submissions were factually incorrect. There was no evidence of an attempt to evade service; and no writ was in fact served on the insurance company. What indeed happened was that in consonance with insurance practice, the insurance company sought a copy of the writ to keep itself informed of any steps taken against its insured. That attempt to be au fait with steps that might affect their insured cannot amount to an acceptance of service. The plaintiff could have sought substituted service, but he did nothing of the kind. Even at the last-ditch stage when the writ was in danger of being struck out on the registrar’s summons, the plaintiff’s solicitor failed to appear to make any representations, even though served.
It is trite law that proceedings against a party are deemed to commence only after the service of a writ or notice on that party: see the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), Order 16, r. 11, Order 9, r. 17 and Royal Exchange Assurance v. Brew [1971] 1 G.L.R. 371, C.A. Where therefore the process is not served subsequent proceedings are null and void: see Craig v. Kanssen [1943] K.B. 256, C.A.; State v. Asantehene’s Divisional Court B1; Ex parte Kusada [1963] 2 G.L.R. 238 at p. 246, S.C. and Thomas Bishop Ltd. v. Helmville Ltd. [1972] 1 All E.R. 365, C.A.
Thus in R. v. Appeal Committee of Country of London Quarter Sessions; Ex parte Rossi [1956] 1 All E.R. 670 at p. 674, C.A. Denning L.J., as he then was, said:
"it is a fundamental principle of our law that no one is to be found g
