STEPHEN NUMADO & 93 ORS. VS KINGDOM HOPE AVENUE SCHOOL
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- JUSTICE NICHOLAS M. C. ABODAKPI (J)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Plaintiffs filed a motion for a writ of summons and statement of claim but failed to provide necessary addresses and T.I.N. numbers as required by procedural rules and Act 915. Despite arguing difficulties due to unnumbered houses by the Municipal Authority, the court, referencing the Standard Bank Offshore Trust VRS. N. I B. case, found the failure to supply these details fatal to the action. The court declared the writ of summons a nullity and awarded costs to the defendant.
1. This Court heard the motion on notice for an Order
setting aside the Writ of Summons and Statement of
Claim.
Firstly, it has been contended that the Plaintiffs
failed to provide their occupational and residential
addresses as required by the rules of procedure in
(ORDER 2 Rule 5(1) of C.I. 47.
Secondly it has been contended that they failed to
provide their T.I.N. number in breach Act 915
[Section 11(2) (a) and (b) specifically].
Thirdly public policy reason was given as a reason
why this court must ensure compliance with the law
by the Plaintiffs.
What is offered in rebuttal is found in two
affidavits the first is the affidavit in opposition
filed on 20-11-2018 and the second filed on 11-12-
In the first difficulties faced by plaintiffs in
supplying the addresses was canvassed, it was argued
that the houses are unnumbered because, the Municipal
Authority has failed to do so. And on the T.I.N. –
numbers it was contended that, Act 915, should not
be applied such as to deny plaintiffs their right to
be heard as that will amount to breaches of the rules
of natural justice.
Thirdly Exhibit “1” a letter on GA-WEST MUNICIPAL
ASSEMBLY, letter head has been proffered as evidence
of failure of the local government to number the
houses, hence the lack of such address required by
the rule of court.
And Exhibit “2” a writ too has been annexed. And this
court has perused same counsel for
Plaintiffs/Respondents submitted that Counsel for
defendant/applicant also failed to supply the
occupational and residential address of the
defendant.
This court in assessment of the affidavit evidence,
will take first the requirement of provision of
occupational and residential address by parties or
by a plaintiffs.
This question has been addressed by the Supreme Court
in its interpretation in the case: Standard Bank
Offshore Trust VRS. N. I B. civil appeal dated 21-
06-2016.
The apex court held without equivocation that a
failure to supply residential and occupational
address is fatal to a writ taken in that action.
The case cited involve a foreign Plaintiff, but the
effect of the rule is the same. It has so been held
in other cases.
The submissions and evidence to the effect that the
Municipal Assembly failed or is yet to give numbers
to houses appears plausible but it is not good reason
to hold otherwise.
Because apart from the binding effect of ORDER 2 RULE
5(1) (A) OF C.I. 47, Order 4, and as has been given
judic