PRACTICE NOTE: DAKE v. DORWU [1971] 2 GLR 75
3 June 1970 · FRANCIOS J · ≈ 1 min read
[1970] SLR (HC) 44Other citation styles and permanent link
SLR is the Superlaw Reports citation series assigned by SuperLawGH. It is not an official law report. Suggested styles are a guide, so check your institution’s style guide.
DIVISION: IN THE HIGH COURT, HO
DATE: 3 JUNE 1970
BEFORE: FRANCIOS J.
COUNSEL
F. T. C. Amorin for the plaintiff.
A. A. Ackuaku for the defendant.
JUDGMENT OF FRANCIOS J.
The question for determination is whether Order 44, r. 2 of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), requires an applicant after he has obtained leave to issue a writ of attachment, to serve on the respondents all the papers filed in the application. The present White Book (Supreme Court Practice) has undergone some changes which are not adequately reflected in our own civil procedure so I have had recourse to the old White Book (Annual Practice) to consider the gloss on Order 44, r. 2. It is stated in the 1961 edition at p. 1081, under evidence, the following: “In applications for attachment copies of the affidavits and of the exhibits must be served with the notice of motion.” It seems to me that that has been the practice in our courts, and I consequently rule that the applicant must comply with this practice.
