FLT. LT. JERRY JOHN RAWLINGS vs. GENERAL MEDIA STRATEGIC INC AND 5 OTHERS [2017]DLHC4029

Date	2017-08-10
Suit No.	SUIT NO. GJ/1315/2016
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC4029

KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

MS. HANIYA YAHAYA FOR PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT

MR. JOHN DARKO FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS

[2017]DLHC4029
																																						<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" >FLT. LT. JERRY JOHN
RAWLINGS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GENERAL MEDIA STRATEGIC
INC AND 5 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH COURT (GENERAL JURISDICTION 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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

SUIT&nbsp;NO.
GJ/1315/2016&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: 10TH AUGUST, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MS. HANIYA YAHAYA FOR
PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT <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">

MR.
JOHN DARKO FOR THE DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS <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;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

KWEKU T. ACKAAH-BOAFO JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT<o:p></o:p>

</div><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:.2in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-top:1.45pt;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>NOTICE ON MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE WRIT
OF SUMMONS<o:p></o:p>Introduction:<o:p></o:p>[1]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; After
being served with the Plaintiff’s Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim, the &nbsp;Defendants/Applicants herein entered
Conditional Appearance, in other words entered appearance under protest and
brought this instant Motion on Notice pursuant to Order 2 Rule 7(5) of the High
Court Civil Procedure Rules, (2004) CI 47.<o:p></o:p>[2]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
grounds upon which the application is premised are catalogued in the 8
paragraph supporting affidavit accompanying the motion paper.&nbsp; The rationale underpinning the appearance
under protest is stated at paragraph 5 of the supporting affidavit. The
Defendants/Applicants’ case is that “the Plaintiff’s Writ of Summons, notice of
which was served on the Defendants outside the jurisdiction was in flagrant
violation of the rules of Court” and therefore the writ and statement of claim
should be set aside.<o:p></o:p>Arguments
in Favour of the Motion:<o:p></o:p>[3]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In
moving the application, Learned Counsel referred to the averments in the
affidavit and submitted that “the law is that no writ which is to be served out
of the jurisdiction shall be issued without the leave of the Court” and
therefore the Plaintiff’s failure to first obtain the leave of the Court before
the issuance of the writ makes the Writ of Summons and the accompanying
Statement of Claim defective, wrong in law and not in compliance with the rules
of Court. Relying on the case of LOKKO AND ANOTHER v. LOKKO [1989-90] 1
GLR 96–100 learned Counsel submitted and urged on
the Court to set aside the writ accordingly.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Arguments
Against the Motion:<o:p></o:p>[4]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Responding
to the arguments of counsel for the Defendants, learned Counsel for the
Plaintiff submitted that the instant application is misconceived because
according to Counsel the rules require that leave be obtained to serve the
notice of the writ and not the writ of summons. Learned Counsel submitted that
in her view, her learned friend is confusing the leave to serve the notice of
the writ and leave to issue a writ of summons. She therefore urged on the Court
to dismiss the application. <o:p></o:p>