ZOOMLION GHANA LTD v. MERSKWORLD CO. LTD
2013
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
- AKAMBA, J.S.C
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2013
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves the Plaintiff/Appellant/Applicant, a limited liability company, seeking to suspend enforcement of a High Court judgment, claiming improper service of process on its former lawyers rather than itself. The Respondents opposed the application, citing procedural failings. The court found merit in the Applicant's argument about improper service and natural justice breach, granting the interim suspension of enforcement pending the appeal. References were made to prior relevant cases and statutes regarding service on limited liability companies.
R U L I N G
This is an application by the Plaintiff/Appellant/Applicant for an order of interim injunction or suspension of enforcement of the Judgment obtained in the High Court on 9th April, 2013. Counsel for the Applicant relied on paragraphs 12 to 17 of the affidavit in support for the reasons for the application. Applicant’s contention is that during the pendency of the application for stay of execution at the Court of Appeal, the Defendant/Respondent/Respondent deposed in their affidavit in opposition that the Plaintiff/Appellant/Applicant (hereinafter simply Applicant) and its former lawyers had been served on several dates to attend Court but they had failed to attend Court. This observation was repeated by the trial Judge in her Judgment. This therefore prompted the present counsel for the Applicant to conduct a search to ascertain whether the Applicant and/or his counsel had indeed been served. The result of the search is the stunning revelation that the service was made on the former lawyers of the Applicant. According to Applicant’s counsel such service on the former lawyers for the Applicant was no service on the Applicant who ought to be served in conformity with the requirements of the Company’s Code, being a company. The failure to do so has resulted in a failure of justice. Applicant therefore prays that the failure to serve the Applicant is a breach of the rules of natural justice as depicted by the search results, and this goes to the very foundation of the suit. Applicant therefore prays for an order of this Court to suspend the enforcement of the entry of the said Judgment pending the final determination of the appeal to this Court.
The Respondents are opposed to the grant of the Applicant’s prayer stating that the High Court did not order service on counsel. According to Respondent, the Applicant was served with the motion to strike out their action and to be allowed to pursue their counter claim at which time, the pit, the subject of dispute had been filled up. Respondent’s counsel further submitted that an injunction was incompetent citing the practice under order 25r. 3 of CI 47 which requires that an applicant should attach a statement of case as well as all legal arguments in support of such application but the Applicant has failed to satisfy all these.
I have carefully considered the issues before me in the present application. The Applicant has raised issues of non-service of process on them thereby challenging the very comp