PRACTICE NOTE: DAKE vs. DORWU [1970]DLHC2146

Date	1970-06-03
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1970]DLHC2146

FRANCIOS J.

F. T. C. AMORIN FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

A. A. ACKUAKU FOR THE DEFENDANT

[1970]DLHC2146
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >PRACTICE NOTE: DAKE <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>DORWU <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, HO]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1971] 2 GLR 75<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
3 JUNE 1970.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

F. T. C. AMORIN FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>

A. A. ACKUAKU FOR THE DEFENDANT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

FRANCIOS J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF FRANCIOS J.<o:p></o:p>The
question for determination is whether Order 44, r. 2 of the Supreme [High]
Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), requires an applicant after he
has obtained leave to issue a writ of attachment, to serve on the respondents
all the papers filed in the application. The present White Book (Supreme Court
Practice) has undergone some changes which are not adequately reflected in our
own civil procedure so I have had recourse to the old White Book (Annual Practice)
to consider the gloss on Order 44, r. 2. It is stated in the 1961 edition at p.
1081, under evidence, the following: “In applications for attachment copies of
the affidavits and of the exhibits must be served with the notice of motion.”<o:p></o:p>

It seems
to me that that has been the practice in our courts, and I consequently rule
that the applicant must comply with this practice.<o:p></o:p></main>