Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
February 27, 2023
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
On the 22nd of December, 2022 the Plaintiff/Respondent (Plaintiff) herein commenced the instant suit against the Defendants/Applicants (Defendants) herein for the reliefs endorsed on his writ. Upon the service of the writ on the Defendants, they each entered conditional appearance to same by two different lawyers.
Following their respective entries of conditional appearance, each Defendant filed a Motion to strike out the Plaintiff’s suit albeit on slightly different grounds.
In response to both Applications Counsel for Plaintiff however filed a single Affidavit in Opposition. This affidavit sought to address the grounds raised in both applications.
This Court expressed concern about this “short-cut” procedure employed by the Plaintiff, firstly because each Defendant is represented by a different lawyer and secondly because the grounds advanced by each Defendant for seeking to have the writ thrown out, cannot be said to be the same even though there appears to be a ground common to both Applications.
Upon a reading of the 1st Defendant’s Affidavit in support, it becomes clear that it seeks to have the writ struck out on the basis that:
a) It has not been signed by the Solicitor who issued the Writ on the Plaintiff’s behalf in breach of Order 2 Rule 7(2) of........ CI 47
b) It does not bear the residential address of the Plaintiff as required by Order 2 (5) (1) (a) of... CI 47
The Second Defendant on the other hand seeks an order setting aside /striking out the Writ or it a service on 2nd Defendant on grounds that
The Writ is not endorsed with the Plaintiff’s residential and occupational address
The 2nd Defendant mentioned in the writ is unknown to the 2nd Defendant as the 2nd Defendant’s name is Puma Energy Distribution Ghana Limited and not Puma Energy. 2nd Defendant therefore contends that it is unclear which entity the Plaintiff has sued or intends to sue.
I shall first address the ground common to both Applications which is that the failure of the Plaintiff to state his residential and occupational address renders the Writ null and void.
To put things in proper perspective it is important to note that all the breaches complained of, except perhaps that which concerns the true identity of the 2nd Defendant relate to our Rules of procedure.
Admittedly, an examination of the Writ and Statement of Claim reveals that the Plaintiff is in breach of Order 2 (5) (1) (a) as he failed to endorse same with his residential and or occupational addr
AI Generated Summary
In the Ghana High Court, Her Ladyship Justice Akua Sarpomaa Amoah (Mrs.) addressed two strike-out motions filed by separate counsel for the first and second defendants after conditional appearances were entered in response to a writ issued on 22 December 2022. The first defendant argued the writ was defective for lacking the issuing solicitor’s signature (Order 2 Rule 7(2), CI 47) and the plaintiff’s address (Order 2 (5)(1)(a)), while the second defendant raised the same address issue and claimed misdescription, asserting the proper name is Puma Energy Distribution Ghana Limited rather than “Puma Energy.” The plaintiff, represented by Justin Amenuvor of Amenuvor & Associates, filed a single affidavit in opposition. Distinguishing STANDARD BANK OFFSHORE and invoking Supreme Court guidance on treating “shall” as directory where justified, the court found no prejudice given effective service via counsel, accepted a lawyer’s stamp/signature on the statement of claim per Order 83 and Aboagye v Baidoo, and treated the naming error as a misnomer under DAVIES v ELSBY. The court refused to strike out the writ, granted leave to amend to cure defects, and awarded GH2 1,500 costs to each defendant.