Court: Supreme Court

Year:

Principle(s): General rule: Non-compliance with the rules in C.I. 47 does not automatically result in a nullity of the proceedings or the judgement. Exceptions: However, non-compliance will result in nullity under the following circumstances: 1. If the non-compliance is fundamental as to go to the jurisdiction of the court, as stated in Frimpong v Nyarko [1999-2000] SCGLR 429 at p. 442, 2. If the non-compliance is also in breach of the constitution or the rules of natural justice. 3. If the non-compliance also violates a statute, the court cannot waive the non-compliance as same would be a nullity, and one cannot waive a nullity.

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2011

Principle(s): Although Order 1 Rule 1 Sub-Rule 2 enjoins the court to interpret and apply the rules of court to ensure speedy and effective trial, the court will not stretch the language of a rule of court if doing so will amount to abuse and injustice. The court will rather construe the rules strictly to give effect to the rules.

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2007

Principle(s): 1. The writ of summons must have all the names of the plaintiffs on its face. 2. However, if the writ cannot contain all the names, the names of all the plaintiffs must be on a piece of paper attached to the writ. 3. An applicant in whose favour an order is made, must comply with the terms of the order; failure to do so renders the order void.

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2013

Principle(s): 1. One can only represent a party as a lawyer in court if he has a valid solicitor’s licence. 2. One cannot sign documents, such as a writ or motion, unless he has a valid solicitor’s licence.

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2003-2004

Principle(s): 1. If a person commences an action in a capacity he does not have, the writ is a nullity, and so are proceedings and judgement founded upon it. 2. Where the capacity of a person who sues in a representative capacity is challenged, he has the burden of proving his capacity. 3. A person who sues in a representative capacity has no burden to prove his capacity if his capacity is not challenged. 4. A conditional appearance is to enable the defendant who intends to object to the issue or service of the writ or notice of the writ on him, or to object to the jurisdiction of the court, to apply to the court to set aside the writ, or notice of the writ or the service thereof on him. 5. Merely having a defence to an action, however, unimpeachable the defence, is not grounds for entering conditional appearance. 6. After entering conditional appearance, a person cannot apply to have the writ set aside on grounds that the action is either frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the process of the court.

Court:

Year: 1990

Principle(s): 1. Non-compliance with the rules of civil procedure may render a writ null or be regarded as a mere irregularity that can be cured. 2. Where the rules use the mandatory word “shall,” the rule becomes mandatory, and its breach will not be a mere irregularity. 3. Where a writ is issued out of the jurisdiction without leave of the court, the writ is null.

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 1965

Principle(s): 1. A writ issued by a person who lacks capacity is a nullity, and so are the proceedings and judgment founded upon it. 2. Where a writ is null, an amendment to the writ is of no effect. 3. A person’s capacity to institute an action may be prescribed by statute.

Court: Supreme Court

Year: 2003-2004

Principle(s): 1. A writ of summons that is not indorsed with a substantive claim is a nullity. 2. A substantive claim is one that indicates the general nature of the plaintiff’s cause of action against the defendant and enables the defendant to know, in very general terms, the substantive action being brought against him. 3. A null writ cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court. 4. A writ not authenticated by the signature of the plaintiff or his solicitor is a nullity.

Court:

Year: 1981

Principle(s): 1. Meaning of personal service: “Service on the person of the defendant.” 2. Service on company: This is governed by the Companies Act, 2019 (Act 992). 3. Substituted service is only ordered after the failure of personal service.

Court: High Court

Year: 1971

Principle(s): 1. Substituted service can only be resorted to where personal service cannot be effected for stated reasons. 2. If at the time of the issue of a writ, personal service of it could not have been made, then unless it is a case of evading service, substituted service cannot be ordered. 3. In the absence of an address for service, personal service cannot be made. The address of the defendant is an essential feature of the writ.

Court: High Court

Year: 1989

Principle(s): 1. An address is an essential part of a writ. 2. Failure to endorse the address of a defendant on a writ renders the writ invalid against that defendant. 3. However, if there are multiple defendants, the entire writ is still valid, and an amendment may correct the invalidity against the defendant whose address is omitted. 4. Where personal service cannot be ordered because the defendant was outside the jurisdiction at the time of the issue of the writ, substituted service will not be ordered.