FAH vs. BEDIATUO II AND OTHERS

The plaintiff had earlier commenced an action against the defendants for special and general damages for trespass and for a perpetual injunction in respect of his farm. The first defendant counterclaimed for damages and perpetual injunction. The suit was later consolidated with another land-related action. After the consolidated suits were relisted for hearing, hearing notices were issued. The plaintiff later applied by motion to set aside the proceedings and judgment delivered on 7 June 1963 by Bruce-Lyle J., contending that there had been non-compliance with Order 70 of the Supreme High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 1954 because the hearing notice had not been served on him personally. The defendants opposed the application, arguing that service on the plaintiff’s solicitor was sufficient, that the plaintiff’s counsel had appeared and taken steps in the proceedings, and that in any event the plaintiff had in fact been personally served. The court received fresh evidence from the bailiff and the plaintiff on the issue of service and ultimately found that personal service had been effected and that the proceedings were regular. Portion of judgment: “asking this court for an order to set aside the proceedings, including the judgment of Bruce-Lyle J. ... on the ground that there had been noncompliance with the said Order”; and “the plaintiff, who is the applicant herein took out an ordinary writ of summons ... claiming against them special and general damages for trespass and also an order for perpetual injunction in respect of his farm.”