DANIEL MENSAH TETTEH & 2 ORS vs EMMANUEL ANNUM TETTEH, WISDOM [2018]DLHC16594

Date	2018-05-28
Suit No.	SUIT NO. LD/0658/2017
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC16594

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE K. A. GYIMAH

DAVID KOKO

THOMAS HUGHES

[2018]DLHC16594
																																						<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" >DANIEL MENSAH
TETTEH &amp; 2 ORS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>EMMANUEL ANNUM TETTEH, WISDOM<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 2.45pt;">

</div>COUNSEL&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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: black; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 2.45pt;">

DAVID KOKO FOR
PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS <o:p></o:p>

THOMAS HUGHES FOR
DEFENDANTS/APPLICANTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM&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; <o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE K. A.
GYIMAH <o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: black; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: black; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 2.45pt;">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; R U L I N G ON PRELIMINARY LEGAL OBJECTION TO WRIT OF SUMMONS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; AND STATEMENT OF CLAIM<o:p></o:p><h1 style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:2.45pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:
0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:115%">Introduction<o:p></o:p></h1>By
a writ of summons and statement of claim issued on 7th June 2017,
the plaintiffs who identified themselves as ordinarily resident in the United
States of America, United Kingdom and Canada respectively claimed certain
reliefs against the defendants including declaration of title, recovery
of possession, damages
for trespass, perpetual
injunction, costs including litigation costs and legal fees. The defendants entered appearance to the
writ on 9th August 2017.<o:p></o:p>On
14th December 2017, the defendants filed a notice of preliminary
legal objection objecting to the writ of summons and statement of claim
on the ground that it is null and
void as it offends Order 2 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004 (C.I.
47). On 8th February 2018, this court
differently constituted ordered
the parties to file
their legal arguments in respect of the preliminary legal objection for ruling. The parties duly filed their legal
arguments.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<h1 style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:2.45pt;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:
0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%">Defendants’ Arguments<o:p></o:p></h1>&nbsp;It
is the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs who are ordinarily resident
outside the jurisdiction instituted this action but however failed to provide
their residential addresses as required by the rules of court. It is counsel’s argument that under order
2 rule (3) (2) of CI 47, the occupational and residential address of the
plaintiff rather than the address of the lawyer of the plaintiff shall be used
on the writ.<o:p></o:p></span</main>