TOTAL PETROLEUM GH LTD vs KOFI JOB CO. LTD.
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE JANAPARE A. BARTELS-KODWO (MRS.)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2018
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In this case, the Plaintiff issued a Writ of Summons for the recovery of GH¢2,352,559.59 from the Defendant, and it was served on a security officer. The Defendant argued that service was improper as it wasn't served at the registered office or to a legal officer. The Plaintiff maintained that the Writ reached the Managing Director's attention. The court found the service was not in accordance with statutory requirements and set it aside, directing proper service be made at the registered office or to an authorized agent of the Defendant.
This is an application on notice praying this court for an order to set aside the purported service of the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim on the Defendant.
The Writ of Summons was issued on the 19th of February 2018 for the recovery of GH¢2, 352, 559. 59 being the balance due and owing to the Defendant by the Plaintiff and interest on same.
The writ per Exhibit KJ1 was served on Musah Mohammed on 2nd March 2018. What has necessitated this present application to set aside the purported service of the Plaintiff’s/Respondent’s Writ and Statement of Claim is that, the Writ and Statement of Claim were not served on any of the legally mandated officers of the company.
By a search counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent conducted at the Registrar General’s Department (Exhibit KJ2B) it revealed that the Defendant Company had its registered office at Kumasi.
It is their argument that, the processes were not served at either of the registered office premises of the Applicant company or any of its operational sites but rather in Shiashi, Accra where the company has no legal presence.
The Defendant/Applicant further states that, the person on whom the processes were purportedly served is not legally connected with the Defendant/Applicant Company as such those legal documents cannot be served through him.
The Defendant/Applicant Company further contends that, it is a violation of the rules of natural justice as the Defendant/Applicant is deemed in law not to have been served with the said processes.
It therefore prays the Honorable Court makes an order for the processes to be served through any of its legally mandated officers and at its known registered office.
The Plaintiff’s/Respondent’s reply to the application is that, upon reaching the premises of the Defendant/Applicant Company, the Plaintiff’s agent with the Bailiff placed a call to the Defendant’s Managing Director who directed that it should be left with the said security officer whose name appears in the search attached to the Defendant’s/Applicant’s affidavit as Exhibit KJ1. It is the Plaintiff’s/Respondent’s argument that, the essence of service is to bring the process to the attention of the party in an action and that the Writ of Summons has duly come to the attention of the defendant.
Therefore, the application should be dismissed as it is of no merit.
Per the rules of natural justice (Audi alteram partem rule), a court is to give audience to both parties in a suit and it is for this reas