ASANTE vs. AGYEI AND ANOTHER [1986]DLHC844

Date	1986-07-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1986]DLHC844

AMMAH J.

E. K. MENSAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPLICANT.

[1986]DLHC844
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

ASANTE <o:p></o:p>

{HIGH COURT, ACCRA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 2 GLR 475<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
24 JULY 1986<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

E. K. MENSAH FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPLICANT.<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 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AMMAH J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application ex parte by the plaintiff per his counsel for an extension of
time to renew the writ of summons under Order 64, r. 6 of the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A). It is accompanied by an affidavit setting
out the facts relied upon. The renewal of a writ is dealt with under Order 8,
r. 1 of L.N. 140A. By that rule “ . . . the plaintiff may, before the
expiration of the twelve months, apply to the Court or a Judge, for leave to
renew the writ; . . .”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this
case the writ was filed on 18 August 1983. It is clear that the present
application filed on 16 July 1986 is long after the expiration of the twelve
months’ period allowed by Order 8, r. 1, hence the application for an extension
of time to renew the writ.<o:p></o:p>In
support of the present application filed on 16 July 1986 it is deposed as
follows in paragraph 3 and 4 of the affidavit by the plaintiff-applicant.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“3. That
the third defendant was out of the country. I could not serve him with the writ
of summons although his driver was served. 4. That I did not apply for service
by substitution because I was seriously sick and could not travel to Accra to
see my lawyer. But I have been informed that the third defendant has now
returned to Kumasi and can now be served.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
general principle under the English rules with regard to renewal of writs is that
if it is made after the expiration of twelve months as in the instant case,
renewal will not ordinarily be granted if the effect thereof would be to
deprive the defendant of a defence of a statute of limitation which has accrued
to him by reason of the plaintiff’s delay: see Battersby v. Anglo-American Oil
Co. Ltd. [1945] 1 K.B. 23, C.A.: Sheldon v. Brown Bayley’s Steel Works Ltd. and
Dawnays Ltd. [1953] 2 Q.B. 393, C.A. and E. Ltd. v. C. [1959] 1 W.L.R. 692.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>But it is
significant to note that in the case of Ofori v. Lartey [1978] G.L.R. 490 at
494, C.A the Court of Appeal pointed out as follows:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">“Order 8,
r. 1 now differs from the English equivalent, Order 6. r. 8. Our rule expressly
preserves the requirement that the applications must be made before the expiry
of twelve months.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>From the
docket in this case there was an attempt made to serve the third defendant. The
affidavit of service and non-service filed shows that the bailiff was told that
the third defendant had travelled to a village to heal himself. This was on 2
November 1983. It could reasonably be inferred that at that time the plaintiff
was in Ghana and not abroad.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>I think
in the wisdom of the framers of the rules of court, provision was made for
service by substitution to overcome difficulties by way of personal service.
The third defendant’s address on the writ is “Transport Services, Kumasi.” It
is my view that at the time the wri</main>