UNITED STEEL CO. LTD. vs. CORONATION INSURANCE GH LTD (FORMERLY WAPIC INSURANCE CO. LTD) [2023]DLHC16322

UNITED STEEL CO. LTD. vs. CORONATION INSURANCE GH LTD (FORMERLY WAPIC INSURANCE... [2023]DLHC16322

Date	2023-09-07
Suit No.	SUIT NO.CM/BDC/0528/2018
Citation No.	[2023]DLHC16322

HIS LORDSHIP FRANCIS OBIRI ‘J’.

JUSTICE OTENG HOLDING BRIEF FOR PHILIP ADDISON FOR THE PLAINTIFF

[2023]DLHC16322
																																						<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" >UNITED STEEL CO. LTD. <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CORONATION INSURANCE GH
LTD (FORMERLY WAPIC INSURANCE CO. LTD)<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<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: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

&nbsp;SUIT NO.CM/BDC/0528/2018&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:
7TH&nbsp;SEPTEMBER 2023<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<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: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>CORAM<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: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

</div>&nbsp;<div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

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

</div>I have listened to
the submission by counsel for Plaintiff for the grant of an order for
substituted service in respect of the Plaintiff’s application for the release of
the judgment sum which had been paid into court.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Plaintiff’s prayer is that it should be
granted leave to serve the application for the release of the judgment sum on
the beneficiaries by substitution.<o:p></o:p>It is trite learning,
that before a party will file a motion for substituted service, there should be
evidence that attempts have been made to effect personal service on the other party
and it has not been successful. <o:p></o:p>Therefore<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">, substituted service
can only be resorted to where personal service could not be effected, for
reasons which should be stated with great particularity in an affidavit<span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;"> in support of the application
for substituted service. <o:p></o:p>Consequently, substituted
service can only be granted where personal service is unsuccessful. <span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The jurisdiction to
order for substituted service therefore depends on the failure of the
prescribed process of personal service in the circumstances.<o:p></o:p>See: DAKAR LTD. v INDUSTRIAL CHEMICAL AND
PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD AND ANOTHER [1981] GLR 453<o:p></o:p>KOMBAT AND OTHERS v BEDIAKO &amp; OTHERS EX PARTE
KOMBAT [1971] 1 GLR 196<o:p></o:p>In this case,
there is no indication that the Plaintiff has made any effort to serve the creditors
whose list has been attached to the application as exhibit B and has not been
successful before bringing this application.<o:p></o:p>I find it very
surprising, that this basic procedure in civil proceedings has not been adhered
to by the Plaintiff.<o:p></o:p>The court will
always be guided by the opinion of the Supreme Court in AMIDU (NO1.) v ATTORNEY-GENERAL, WATERVILLE HOLDINGS (BVI) LTD. AND WOYOME
(NO.1) [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 112, where the Supreme Court held, that even one-sided
application should not be granted hook, line and sinker. <o:p></o:p>The Court held further,
that a court has to scrutinize an application or a case before it to determine whether
its jurisdiction has been properly invoked.&nbsp;
A court is also to examine a document or an application before it to
determine whether there is no collusion in the case, or no element of create,
loot and share which may arise from the outcome of the case before the court.<o:p></o:p>A court has power
to raise the issue of its jurisdiction to determine a case even if it is not
raised by any of the parties.<o:p></o:p>See: BIMPONG-BUTA v GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL
[2003-2004] 2 SCGLR 1200<o:p></o:p>ANTHONY SAKYI
v GA SOUTH MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY [2022] 178 GMJ 216 CA<o:p></o:p>From the above
rendit</main>