POKU vs. KWABENA [1972]DLHC2408

Date	1972-03-23
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1972]DLHC2408

MENSA BOISON J.

POBEE FOR AGYEPONG FOR THE APPELLANT.

ATAKORA FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1972]DLHC2408
																																						<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" >POKU<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;vs.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;KWABENA <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
KUMASI]<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;[1972]
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 0in 0in">

DATE:
23 MARCH 1972.<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">

POBEE FOR AGYEPONG FOR THE APPELLANT.<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">

MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p>On a
claim for a debt of ¢900.00 against the two defendants jointly and severally
the District Court Grade I, Kumasi, presided over by Mr. T. B. G. S. Addo,
district magistrate, gave judgment for the plaintiff in the absence of the
defendants as an “undefended” cause.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
certificate of service of the writ of summons made by the bailiff stated: “On
the 17th day of July, 1970 at 2.00 p.m. a copy of this summons was served on
Kwaku Poku [i.e. the appellant] through Juamina.” In evidence on a motion for
stay of execution the said bailiff explained that when he went to the village
he found Juamina, the non-appellant, who told him that the appellant had gone
to farm. So he “served both copies of the writ of summons on Juamina for him to
give the other copy to his brother . . . At first he protested but later
accepted them.” In the proceedings for stay of execution the trial court found
as a fact that the appellant had actual notice of the writ of summons.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The only
ground of appeal argued on behalf of the appellant was that the judgment
against the appellant was void in so far as he was not personally served with
the writ of summons. Counsel bases his submission on the provisions of the
Courts Ordinance, Cap. 4 (1951 Rev.), Sched. II, Order 10, r. 1 which reads:
“The writ or document shall be served on every defendant within the time and in
the manner directed by the Court.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
contends that without any direction to the contrary there should be personal
service, and that the service through the second defendant amounted to
substituted service, which can only be valid service, if so directed by the
court. If counsel is right it follows that the judgment was invalid.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the respondent in substance contends that on the true construction of Order
10, rr. 1 to 13 only the mode of service on particular defendants are provided
for; and as rule 1, which applies to the defendant, does not direct personal
service, it is adequate service if the defendant in fact had actual notice of
the writ.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In my
opinion although Order 10, r. 1 does not specifically mention personal service,
as rules 2 to 13 direct specific mode of service on particular defendants,
service on a defendant not within rules 2 to 13 falls under rule 1. Since rules
2 to 13 made provisions for dispensing with personal service, I think service
under rule 1 is intended to be personal service unless otherwise ordered by the
court. This interpretation seems to me to accord with the practice in the
courts and one looks forward for the day when the rule would be as plainly
stated as it is intended.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Personal
service is known to the rules of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure)
Rules, 1954 (L.N.</main>