TOTAL PETROLEUM GH LTD & 3 ORS (PLAINTIFFS) vs. GHANA AIRPORTS CO. LTD (DEFENDANT) [2016]DLHC7273

TOTAL PETROLEUM GH LTD & 3 ORS (PLAINTIFFS) vs. GHANA AIRPORTS CO. LTD (DEFENDAN... [2016]DLHC7273

Date	2016-11-14
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BFS/119/09
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC7273

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).

[2016]DLHC7273
																																						<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" >TOTAL
PETROLEUM GH LTD &amp; 3 ORS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA
AIRPORTS CO. LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION), ACCRA]<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">

SUIT
NO. BFS/119/09&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: 14TH NOVEMBER, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>In this application, the defendant/applicant
(herein after called the defendant) is seeking an order of the court to set
aside the service of the writ of summons served on the defendant. The main
contention of the defendant is that the purported service of the writ of summons
on defendant through Georgina Akuoko is not a proper service as it was done
contrary to the laid down rules of service of documents on a company.<o:p></o:p>Briefly, the material facts giving rise to this
application is that, on the 20th of April, 2016, the
plaintiff/respondent (herein after called the ‘plaintiff’) filed at the
registry of this court, a writ of summons, accompanied with a statement of
claim and a motion for interlocutory Injunction. An affidavit of service on the
record reveals that the defendant was served on the 21st April, 2016
through Georgina Akuoko at 12:30pm. On the 26th April, 2016, the defendant,
through its lawyers, entered a conditional appearance. Subsequent to this the
defendant filed the present application seeking to set aside the service of the
processes on the defendant. <o:p></o:p>I have read the application. I have also read the
affidavit in support and in opposition. I have also read the written
submissions filed by both counsel for and in opposition to the application. Thoughtful
consideration has also been given to order 9 rule 8 of CI.47; order 7 rule 5(1)
of CI. 47; section 263 of the companies Act, (Act 179) and section 261 of the
Act 179. I have also given consideration to the decisions in Barclays Bank of
Ghana Ltd v Ghana Cable Company Ltd. [1998-99] SCGLR1; NATIONAL INVESTMENT BANK
LTD v MESSERS AGYALCOT COMPANY LTD. SUIT NO. H1/136/06 dated 1st
November, 2007; GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK v TABURY [1977] 1 GLR 329. WATSON v
SHEATER SONS &amp; CO. LTD (1856) 2 TLR 423; STATE v ASANTEHENE DIVISIONAL
COURT, EX-PARTE KUSADA (1963) 2GLR 238 AND BRAKOWA VAWAKYEWAH &amp; ANOR [1961]
GLR 161.<o:p></o:p>The core issue that I have to resolve in this
application is as to whether or not the service of the processes on defendant
through Georgina Akuoko is a proper service as required by the rules governing
the service of documents on a company. <o:p></o:p>The object of service of process or documents on
parties was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ex-parte Kusada
(Supra). The court held among other things that:<o:p></o:p>‘‘The
object of service is merely to bring to the notice of an affected party or
institution the pendency of a court proceedings.’’<o:p></o:p>

From the facts and evidence before me,&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></main>