SAMUEL ABAOGYE & ANOTHER v. FRANK OTCHERE BAIDOO
2017
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- AYEBI, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- TORKORNOO (MRS), J. A.
- DOMAKYAAREH (MRS), J. A.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2017
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Ghana Court of Appeal, per Justice Gertrude Torkornoo (J.A.), dismissed an appeal challenging the validity of a writ that bore a law firm stamp prefaced with “pp” rather than a handwritten signature. The writ, issued for the Plaintiff/Respondent by Obeng-Manu Jnr Esq of OBENG-MANU LAW FIRM, SARPOMAA CHAMBERS, was served; the Defendant/Appellant entered appearance, filed a defence and counterclaim, and later opposed an interlocutory injunction. At directions, the trial judge queried the absence of manuscript signature; defence counsel argued the writ was a nullity. Applying Order 2 Rule 7(2) and Order 82 of CI 47 and Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of signature, the Court held the stamp authenticated the document on behalf of the named lawyer, found no prejudice, rejected grounds on license/registration details, and dismissed the appeal with costs; Ayebi, J.A. and Domakyaareh, J.A. concurred.
TORKORNOO (MRS), J. A.
The Plaintiff/Respondent commenced this action by lawyer named as Obeng-Manu Jnr Esq. The Writ was not signed in manuscript but stamped with the words OBENG-MANU LAW FIRM, SARPOMAA CHAMBERS, P. O. BOX 6541, PLOT 2A, WEST NHYIAESO, AHODWO. These words were prefaced with the abbreviation ‘PP’. The Defendant/Appellant entered appearance by a lawyer, and also filed a defence and counterclaim. The Plaintiff later changed his counsel who filed an application for interlocutory injunction against the Defendant. Although the Defendant opposed the application, the court granted same. The Plaintiff filed his Reply and Defence to counterclaim and the Application for Directions, thus bringing pleadings to a close. At the hearing of the Application for Directions, the Judge drew the attention of the counsels to the fact that the Writ was not signed by the lawyer named as having issued it. The counsel for Defendant then argued that an unsigned Writ was a nullity and therefore ought to be set aside by the court as invalid. The Plaintiff counsel’s argument was that the lack of a signature on the Writ ought to be considered as an irregularity which can be rectified at the direction of the court. After arguments, the court ruled that the Writ was signed, and even if the Writ was not signed, that failure had not resulted in any injury, or prejudice to the Defendants. He discussed the decision of the Supreme Court in Republic v High Court Koforidua, Ex parte Eastern Regional Development Corporation 2003-2004 SCGLR 21 in which the Supreme Court had held that in the situation where a judgment had not been delivered within six weeks as required by Order 62 rule 2A of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules LN 140 A, inserted by LI 1107, that non-compliance with the rules of court did not constitute a fundamental defect that rendered the judgment invalid. It was his reasoning that defence counsel had not shown how non-compliance with the rules of court had caused injustice or prejudiced him. In the circumstances, it was his ruling that the case should continue and be heard on its merits. In appealing against the ruling, the Defendant set out the following grounds: 1. The honorable court erred in not holding that an unsigned Writ is a nullity and does not invoke the jurisdiction of the court. 2. The honorable court erred in holding that the stamp of the lawyer qualifies as a signature on the Writ. 3. The honorable court erred in respect of the effect of an unsi