Counsel further pointed out that the plaintiff had sued through a lawyer and that the lawyer’s address for service had been provided. More importantly, the defendant had already managed to serve the plaintiff with his own process, undermining the argument that the missing residential or occupational address had created a practical obstacle to service.

Court cautions against elevating procedure above justice

Justice Datsomor acknowledged that Rules of Court must be respected. He noted that the Rules are an integral part of Ghana’s legal system and are designed to regulate civil proceedings. However, he stressed that the purpose of a procedural rule must not be lost when the Court interprets or applies it.

The judge warned that slavish adherence to procedural requirements could produce a result that undermines substantive justice. He therefore considered whether setting aside the writ over the missing address would amount to elevating technicalities over the actual dispute between the parties.

The Court relied heavily on the overriding objective contained in Order 1 Rule 1(2) of C.I. 47, which requires the Rules to be interpreted and applied in a manner that promotes speedy and effective justice, avoids unnecessary delay and expense, and enables disputes to be finally determined without unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings.

Justice Datsomor also drew on the Supreme Court’s description of civil procedure as a vehicle for actualising substantive law rather than an end in itself. Procedural rules, he noted, perform important protective and practical functions, including promoting order, regularity, predictability, transparency and efficient litigation, but ultimately facilitate access to justice.

Not every breach of C.I. 47 is a nullity

The main issue in the ruling was the distinction between a fundamental breach of procedural rules and a mere irregularity. The Court considered the Supreme Court’s decision in The Republic v. High Court, Accra; Ex parte Allgate Company Limited, where the Supreme Court held that non-compliance with the High Court Rules ordinarily constitutes an irregularity and does not result in nullity unless the breach also violates the Constitution, another statute, the rules of natural justice or affects jurisdiction.

However, Justice Datsomor also recognised the qualification subsequently emphasised by the Supreme Court in Standard Bank Offshore Trust Company Limited v. National Investment Bank Limited & Others.

That decision makes clear that a court’s discretion to waive non-compliance is not unlimited. Depending on the nature of the breach, a procedural defect may still render proceedings a nullity, and a court cannot simply waive every breach of the Rules. The question is therefore whether the particular breach is sufficiently fundamental to invalidate the proceedings.

Purpose of the address requirement was decisive

The Court then examined the specific requirement at the centre of the application. Order 2 Rule 3(2) provides that the occupational and residential addresses of the parties must be stated on the writ, with the plaintiff’s address, rather than the lawyer’s address, being used for that purpose.

Justice Datsomor identified the principal purpose of the requirement as facilitating service of court processes and preventing a plaintiff from concealing his whereabouts. The judge nevertheless observed that, in practice, providing either the residential or occupational address would suffice because a party may not necessarily have both.

More importantly, the plaintiff in the present case had commenced the action through a lawyer. Under Order 2 Rule 5, where a plaintiff sues through a lawyer, the lawyer’s business address may serve as the plaintiff’s address for service. The Court therefore found no compelling reason to nullify the writ.

Court orders plaintiff to provide further particulars

Justice Datsomor noted that the plaintiff’s writ had indicated his address simply as “Gomoa Ojobi”, without further particulars. Nevertheless, the Court found that this did not make the writ incurably defective.

Since the plaintiff had sued through a lawyer whose address for service had been provided, the Court concluded that the defendant would not encounter difficulty serving processes on the plaintiff.

The judge therefore held that the appropriate response was not to terminate the proceedings but to require the plaintiff to cure the defect by providing fuller particulars of his residential and/or occupational address.

Accordingly, the Court directed the plaintiff to furnish the Court and the defendant with further and better particulars of his occupational and/or residential address within 14 days. Justice Datsomor emphasised that the omission was not fundamental enough to affect the Court’s jurisdiction or the validity of the action. In his view, the defendant could have simply sought further and better particulars rather than asking the Court to set aside the entire writ.

Application dismissed; substantive case continues

In the final result, the High Court dismissed the defendant’s application to set aside the writ. The plaintiff was nevertheless required to provide the missing particulars within 14 days, after which the substantive suit was to continue in the normal course. The Court made no order as to costs.

CLICK HERE TO READ/DOWNLOAD FULL DECISION