SOCIETE GENERAL GHANA LIMITED VS AGRO INPUT COMPANY LIMITED & ANOR.
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE MRS. ANGELINA MENSAH-HOMIAH
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Defendants sought to set aside a previously granted mandatory injunction, claiming they were not served with the motion notice and pointing out other procedural irregularities. The Plaintiff opposed this with evidence of service. The court analyzed both submissions and concluded that the motion was duly served and correctly granted. The Court upheld the mandatory injunction, refused the application to set it aside, and awarded costs against the Defendants.
The sole question for determination in this application is whether or not there is any ground to justify
the setting aside of the order for mandatory injunction made by this court (differently constituted).
One of the grounds canvassed by Counsel for the Defendants/Applicants (Defendants) as contained in
the supplementary affidavit in support filed on 29th January, 2019 was that the ‘motion on notice for
Mandatory Injunction’ was never served on the Defendants prior to the grant of that application. He
attached a search report from the registry of this Court, exhibit ‘ABM 3’, wherein the answer to a
question on service of the said process was, ‘No’.
Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent (Plaintiff) vehemently opposed the application on this, and other
grounds. On the question of non-service, the Plaintiff caused a supplementary affidavit to be filed to
which was exhibited an ‘affidavit of service’ of the process in contention, exhibit ‘EBM 1’.
The Law is that a court does not have jurisdiction to proceed against a party who has not been served.
This question was addressed in Barclays Bank of Ghana Ltd v. Ghana Cable Co. Ltd & Ors. (1998-
“A Court has generally no jurisdiction to proceed against a party who has not been served.
Accordingly, when a Defendant complains that he has not been served with a writ of summons or any
process which requires personal service, the court is duty- bound to examine that complaint thoroughly
and make a definitive finding, irrespective of whether there is proof of service…”
On this issue of non-service, the court observes that both exhibits ‘ABM 3’ (the search report), and
exhibit ‘EBM 1’, (the affidavit of service) emanated from this court. Whereas the affidavit of service
was deposed to by a private process server, the search filed by Counsel for the Applicant was answered
by a registry staff who was not diligent enough, otherwise he or she would have seen the affidavit of
service filed on 1st March, 2018 by the Private Process Server. Further, exhibit ‘ABM 3’ shows that
the ‘Application for Further Directions for Mandatory Injunction’ was served on the Respondents
therein, through their Lawyer, on 6th August, 2018.
It is the accepted practice that service of processes on the Law Clerk of a party’s Lawyer is good
service. The Supreme Court confirmed this in the case of The Trustees Synagogue Church of All
Nations v. Agyeman (2010) SCGLR 71