This ruling is in respect of an application for an order to set aside the Service of the Petition with a 13 paged supporting Affidavit dated 6th July, 2022.
The mainstay of the application is that the Applicant alleges that the Petitioner procured the order of substituted service by fraud. That on or about 9th May, 2022, the Bailiff of this Court attempted to serve the Court Summons on the Applicant who is the father of the Respondent in the Divorce Petition and that he advised the said bailiff that the Respondent is not resident in Ghana and that he has no authority from the Respondent to receive the service on her behalf. Subsequently, on 23rd June, 2022, he found what appeared to be the same court summons posted on the wall of his house at Number 94 Damax Estates, Kuntunse, Ga West in the Greater Accra Region. It is the case of the Applicant that his daughter has not lived with him at the said house since January 2020 since she joined the Petitioner in England and that the Respondent in their matrimonial home at Number 13A Grange Park Road, Thornton Heath, London, CR7 8QE and later at Number 85 Webster Close, Bracknell, RG12 8H1. The Applicant attached Exhibit ‘ESM1’ which is a copy of the Respondent’s Employee Tax Certificate dated April 5th, 2022 indicating her current or last known address.
Counsel for the Applicant submitted that one must not be a Petitioner or a Respondent to invoke the jurisdiction of the court since it is not a cause or matter. Counsel relied on the principle established in the case of VANDERPUYE vs. AKWEI 1971 1GLR 242 @ page 245 that a step in proceedings or an interlocutory application is not itself a cause or matter and that a cause before a court is the suit or action or original proceedings brought by a plaintiff against a defendant. Counsel submitted that the Petitioner ought to have sought leave of the Court before issuing the Petition in the first place and also sought leave for the service of same. Thus, failure to comply with the rules means that the jurisdiction of this court has not been properly invoked. The Applicant therefore prays the court to set aside the service of the Petition and to make any other order(s) that may be necessary to protect the integrity and honour of the Court.
On the other hand, Petitioner/Respondent is opposed to the application and has filed an 18 paged Affidavit in Opposition dated 18th July, 2022 in that regard.
It is the case of the Petitioner/Respondent that the instant application
