POTSIA AND ANOTHER vs. KLU [1973]DLHC11013

Date	1973-03-05
Suit No.	[1973] 2 GLR 47
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC11013

MENSA BOISON J

A. A. ADOMAKO FOR C. E. QUIST FOR THE APPLICANT OSEI KWAKU FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1973]DLHC11013
																																						<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" >POTSIA AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KLU<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
KUMASI]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

[1973] 2 GLR 47
&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;&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;DATE: 5 MARCH 1973<o:p></o:p>

</div><h2 style="margin-left:0cm;text-align:justify">COUNSEL<o:p></o:p></h2><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

A. A. ADOMAKO FOR C.
E. QUIST FOR THE APPLICANT OSEI KWAKU FOR THE RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

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

</div><h2 style="margin-left:0cm;text-align:justify">JUDGMENT OF MENSA BOISON J.<o:p></o:p></h2>This
is an application on notice of motion to set aside the service of the writ of
summons on the defendant on the
ground that the writ was served after the expiration of twelve months when the
writ was not in force.<o:p></o:p>From
the affidavits and the court docket, the facts I find are as follows: The
action was commenced by a writ filed
on 4 March 1969. By an ex parte application filed on 2 March 1970, and heard on
16 March 1970, leave was granted to
the plaintiff to renew the writ for six months as from 2 March 1970. The original writ on the court’s docket bears
the following endorsement duly signed by the Senior High Court registrar: “Renewed writ of summons by
order of the court dated 16 March 1970, for six months from 2 March 1970”.<o:p></o:p>On 9 March 1970, the defendant
was served in Accra with a copy of the writ and the statement
of claim.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It appears the writ and the statement of
claim were already with the bailiffs in Accra before the renewal; and the copy of the writ served had no
endorsement of renewal as appears on the original writ in the docket.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The
defendant entered a conditional appearance by solicitor on 25 March 1970, and
on 3 June 1970, filed a motion on
notice to have the service of the writ set aside. For reasons not explained the
solicitor filed a notice on 15 July
1970 “wholly discontinuing the motion.” On 19 January 1973, the same solicitor
again filed a similar motion, which
as counsel he now argues asking for an order to set aside service of the writ, it not
being in force on 9 March 1970.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;On
seeing the affidavit in opposition in court to the effect that the writ was in
fact renewed as already stated,
counsel submitted in the alternative that the renewed writ is what ought to
have been served on the defendant. As
a last resort counsel’s stand would appear to be that in any case the writ
served on the defendant ought to
have been sealed as renewed, to amount to a regular
service.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;It
is clear that the renewal of the original writ in this case was done under
Order 8, r. 1 of the Supreme [High]
Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A). It is as well to note that the
position under the rule is that the
writ is not in force for purposes of service after the twelve months’ period
has run; but it is still a writ. So
that an unconditional appearance by a defendant to such a writ is a step in the
action and amounts to a waiver with
regard to service, and prevents such defendant from being able to contend successfully that the service on him is bad: see Sheldon v. Brown Bayley’s
Steel Works and Dawnays Ltd. [1953] 2 Q.B. 393 at p. 400, C.A. In the instant case, the defendant having
entered a conditional appearance has not waived his right to challenge