AMALGAMATED BANK LTD (PLAINTIFF) vs. PRICELINE CONSULT & ORS (DEFENDANTS) [2018]DLHC7187

Date	2018-11-08
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BFS/299/11
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC7187

HIS LORDSHIP GEORGE K. KOOMSON (J).

JULIO DE MADEIROS FOR 4TH DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

EDDIE YAW HARVEY FOR PLAINTIF/RESPONDENT

[2018]DLHC7187
																																						<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" >AMALGAMATED
BANK LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>PRICELINE
CONSULT &amp; ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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/299/11&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 8TH NOVEMBER, 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>JULIO
DE MADEIROS FOR 4TH DEFENDANT/APPLICANT <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">

EDDIE
YAW HARVEY FOR PLAINTIF/RESPONDENT<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 4th
Defendant/Applicant (herein after called the 4th Defendant) prays
this Court for an order setting aside the Judgement of the Court dated 26th
March, 2018, made against the 4th Defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>A brief summary of the facts giving
rise to this application is that the 1st Defendant, Priceline
Consult Limited, obtained a loan facility from the Plaintiff.&nbsp; The 4th Defendant who is one of
the Directors of the 1st Defendant Company, by a deed of guarantee,
expressly guaranteed the repayment of all sums due under the said credit
facility given to the 1st Defendant.&nbsp;
The 5th, 6th, 7th Defendants also
executed the deed of guarantee.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The 1st Defendant was unable
to settle its indebtedness with the Plaintiff causing the Plaintiff to issue a Writ
of Summons against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th,
5th, 6th and 7th Defendants.&nbsp; The trial having travelled over a period of six
(6) years, Judgment was delivered on the 23rd March, 2018 in favour
of the Plaintiff.&nbsp; During the process of
execution, the 4th Defendant filed the present application seeking
an order to set aside the Judgment entered against him on the main ground that
he was not served with the Writ of Summons.&nbsp;&nbsp;
<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Order 7 rule 2 (1) of the High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 CI. 47 as amended provides:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“2. (1)&nbsp;
A document which is required to be served on a person shall be served
personally unless the express provisions of these rules otherwise provide or
the Court otherwise directs.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The rule 3 (1) further provide how
personal service is to be effected.&nbsp; It
provides that:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>“3&nbsp;
(1)&nbsp; Personal service of a
document shall be effected by leaving a duplicate or attested copy of the
document with the person to be served.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The question that I have been called
upon to adjudicate in this matter is as to whether or not the 4th
Defendant was not served with the Writ of Summons.&nbsp; The factors which a Court should consider to
set aside a Judgment was given consideration by the Court of Appeal in the case
of ALPHONESO ARYEETEY &amp; ANOR. v
ROYAL INVESTMENT CO. LTD &amp; 18 ORS (CIVIL APPEAL NO. HI/201/2005, November
29, 2005), where the Court stated that:<o:p></o:p>