ZEN PETROLEUM LTD vs FGR BOGOSO PRESTEA LTD.

This is an application by the Defendant/Applicant (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant) filed on the 4th of April 2023, to set aside the order for Substituted Service of the Plaintiff/Respondent’s (hereinafter referred to as Respondent) Writ of Summons on the Applicant dated 17th February 2023.

The antecedents to this application are that on 16th November 2022, the Respondent issued a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim against the Applicant for reliefs endorsed thereon. On 21st November 2022, the Respondent caused the Writ to be served on one Ella Remeh at the business address of the Applicant. The service of the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim was set aside following an application by the Defendant to set aside same because the service of the Writ of Summons was not properly done in accordance with Law. After failed attempts at proper service, the Respondent on 14th February 2023, applied to the Honourable Court for an order of Substituted Service to serve the Writ and Statement of Claim in the manner endorsed on the application and the application was granted on 17th February 2023.

The Applicant herein filed a conditional appearance on 15th March 2023 and subsequently filed the current application setting aside the order of Substituted Service granted by this Court.

Case of Applicant

An Affidavit in Support was attached to the application and deposed to by one Paul Mensah, a Senior Paralegal of Counsel engaged by Applicant. The Applicant contends that this Honourable Court had no jurisdiction to grant the order for Substituted Service by reason of the fact that, the manner for service of a Writ on company is provided for under the Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992). Applicant further states that the power to grant order for Substituted Service is only in respect of service of process personally on humans. Applicant further states that the only way this Honourable Court could have granted the Substituted Service order in respect of a company was where the same was done pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court which only applied where the parties have exhausted the means of service on company provided under the Act 992. However, in the present application, the Respondent applied for the order for Substituted Service pursuant to Order 7 Rule 6 of C. I. 47, and not the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.

Case of Respondent

Respondent on the other hand, opposed the Applicant’s application in an Affidavit deposed to by one Collins At