KOMBAT AND OTHERS vs. BEDIAKO AND OTHERS EX PARTE KOMBAT

The applicants/plaintiffs issued a writ of summons and statement of claim on 26 January 1971 arising out of a motor accident involving vehicles owned by the first and second defendants and allegedly caused by the negligence of their drivers. The first and second defendants were said to be lorry owners whose vehicles were insured with the third defendant, the State Insurance Corporation. The writ endorsed only the address of the third defendant; the first and second defendants had only the towns “Sunyani” and “Kumasi” appended to their names, without proper addresses. On the same day the applicants brought an ex parte motion seeking substituted service of the writ and statement of claim on the third defendant by prepaid registered post, contending that the insurer was in touch with the first and second defendants and would bring the process to their notice. The supporting affidavit, sworn by the solicitor’s clerk, was found to contain an ambiguous and materially problematic paragraph 6, undermining the basis of the application. Portion of judgment: “On 26 January 1971, the applicants took out a writ of summons accompanied by a statement of claim against the defendants... the addresses of the first and second defendants were not indicated... On the same day... applied to this court by an ex parte motion praying for substituted service... by ordering the said documents to be served on the third defendant by prepaid registered post... The said vehicles were involved in an accident caused, the plaintiffs alleged, by the negligence of the drivers for the first and second defendants...”