RICHARD KWASI KILSON & ANOR. VS KOJO OHENE KYEI & 2 ORS
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE NICHOLAS M. C. ABODAKPI (J)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case dealt with a procedural irregularity where the plaintiff failed to endorse a T.I.N. number on the writ of summons as required by the Revenue Administration Act. The court found the action void, dismissed it, and awarded costs of 2,000 against the plaintiff, referencing several precedents that establish the mandatory nature of such statutory requirements.
1. The objection raised is essentially about an irregularity in the issue and endorsement on the writ of Summons.
This defect being the failure to endorse a T. I. N number.
And Act 915, Revenue Administration Act has been cited.
The response to it, or the construction put on the law by counsel for plaintiff/respondent is inaccurate.
2. I am of the view that by analogous reasoning, the interpretation put on violations of statutes that make provision for endorsement of solicitors’ license and chamber registration numbers by the Supreme Court is applicable to this case.
In effect it is my opinion that the following cases are relevant.
1. REPUBLIC VRS High Court [Fast Track Division]Accra, EXPARTE: National Lottery Authority[Ghana Lotto Operators Association Interested Parties] [2009] SCGLR.
390 2. Network Computer System and Marketing Limited VRS. Intelsat Global Sales & Marketing Ltd [2012] 1SCGLR.
218 see the dictum of ATUGUBA J. SC at 221. 3. Standard Bank offshore Trust Co.
LTD. VRS. N. I. B. & 2 ORS.
Civil Appeal No: J4/63/2016. 4. The Republic VRS. High Court, Accra Exparte TERIWAJAH [2013 - 2014] 2SCGLR 1247. The Sections of Act 915, namely sections 2 and 8, are not directional butimpose mandatory requirements on a lawyer who intends to institute a courtaction.
That lawyer is under a duty not only to endorse his solicitors licenseand Chamber Registration numbers of the relevant year on the writ, but also avalid T. I. N. number as well.
This court has no power to waive the breach ofstatute.
BY COURT: 1. On this leg alone, this action commenced on 21-06-2018 with a writ without a valid T. I. N. number is void, and cannot be cured by an amendment.
Plaintiff’s action is accordingly dismissed.
2. Cost of 2, 000 is awarded against Plaintiffs in defendants’ favour.
3. The payment tax cost is made a condition precedent to the commencement of a fresh action.
(SGD.) NICHOLAS M. C. ABODAKPI J. JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT.