mylawguide.lukmanadams.com · view the full app
My Law Guide
A Lukman Mahami Adams Initiative
⚖︎
Civil Procedure

Quick Revision

The rule spine — every rule, plainly put, with its cases and a one-line memory hook.

How to use this booklet Read the rule. Cover the plain-English line and say it back. Then read the 🔑 key line — that is your exam memory hook. Tick a box beside each rule as you test yourself: green = I know it, amber = shaky, red = don't know yet. On the next pass, drill only the amber and red rules. The full app — stories, audio & drills — is at mylawguide.lukmanadams.com.
Ghana School of Law · exam window 22 June 2026
Visit mylawguide.lukmanadams.com to view the full app.
30 chapters
the complete rule spine
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine

The whole subject on a page

One memory hook per chapter — the contents page and the wall sheet in one. Pin it up; if a hook goes blank, open that chapter and drill it.

1 · Introduction to Civil Procedure
Procedure is the how; substance is the what.
2 · Application of the Rules of Court
47 fits the High Court; the Circuit alters the tailoring.
3 · Commencement of Proceedings
Who sues is the plaintiff; who is sued is the defendant.
4 · Venue and Transfer
One stadium, many gates — the gate is venue, not power.
5 · Parties
Common question + same transaction = one action, no leave.
6 · Service of Process
Service is the law’s knock at the door — it exists to give notice.
7 · Appearance & Default of Appearance
Form 5, in triplicate, with two stamped envelopes — the defendant’s first move.
8 · Pleadings
Notice, fence, record — the three jobs every pleading must do.
9 · Counterclaim & Set-off · Default of Defence
A cross-action, not a defence — lives independently inside the plaintiff's case.
9A · Summary Judgment
SJ wins on the merits; default wins on the procedural failure — never confuse them.
10 · Third Party Proceedings
Wrong door = wrong outcome — third party notice, never joinder.
11 · Amendment
One free amendment before pleadings close; leave forever after — and the defendant's appearance, never without leave.
12 · Withdrawal and Discontinuance
No court can force you to litigate — the plaintiff is master of the suit; the court sets only the consequences.
13 · Applications
Every application by motion — on notice by default; name your grounding rule.
14 · Affidavits
Sworn before a proper officer; titled like the cause — a deponent's facts on oath.
15 · Pre-Trial
All cards up — list your documents in 14 days; ordered discovery only if necessary.
15A · Commercial Actions
Trade & commerce, broadly — and "any other claim of a commercial nature".
16 · Interlocutory Injunctions
Serious issue — irreparable harm (damages won't do) — balance of convenience. All three.
17 · Trial
All absent → struck off; one absent → the present party proves, the absentee's case falls.
18 · Judgments and Orders
A declaration declares rights — commands nothing, executes nothing; add a consequential order to enforce.
19 · Enforcement of Judgments
Draw up, enter, serve — no entry, no enforcement.
20 · Execution
One writ, nationwide — movables before immovables; leave if stale/changed/deceased/conditional/receiver; lives 12 months.
21 · Interpleader Actions
Stakeholder = private holder sued by 2+ claimants; Registrar's = a stranger claims goods seized in execution.
22 · Appeals
No statute, no appeal — find the right, obey its conditions exactly.
23 · Moneylenders and Mortgage Actions
Moneylender's = recover money lent / enforce the security; mortgage = pay · sell · receiver · possession · release.
24 · Probate and Administration
Will → probate to executors; no will → letters of admin: spouse → children → parents → customary successor (max 4).
25 · Costs
Costs are discretionary — the court decides by whom, to whom, to what extent.
26 · Time
After a date → start the day after; before a date → end the day before.
27 · Non-Compliance with the Rules
The old judge could still pronounce a nullity — C.I. 47 took that power away.
28 · Election Petitions
Challenge an MP's seat? Start by petition in the High Court.
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
1 Introduction to Civil Procedure The governing order SOURCES Constitution 1992 · Act 459 · C.I. 47 O.1
Leading case Boyefio v NTHC Properties Ltd[1997-98] 1 GLR 768; [1996-97] SCGLR 531 — Where a statute prescribes a special procedure, that procedure alone must be followed — but not every infraction is fat…
High-yield · examined 6× 16 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law for the introductory chapter: what civil procedure is, the iron rule of Boyefio, the sources, the courts and their jurisdiction. Sixteen rules, each with its authority and a one-line recall mnemonic — built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. Civil procedure is the body of rules that governs how a civil dispute is commenced, carried through, and enforced — the “how”, not the “what”. These are the step-by-step rules for running a court case between two people, namely how you start it, move it along, and collect what you win. It is about how you fight, not what the fight is about. Manual Ch.1 · Konki, “What is Civil Procedure?” Procedure is the how; substance is the what.
  2. Substantive law gives the right and the remedy; procedural law gives the road to enforce it — and where the two conflict, substantive law prevails. One set of law says what you are owed and the cure for it. Another set says how to go to court and get it. If the two ever clash, the law about what you are owed wins. Manual Ch.1 (Ward v James; Adjoba v Osofo Hagar) · ex parte E.R.D.C. When the meat meets the recipe, you keep the meat.
  3. The rules of court bind both the parties and the court. The court rules tie everyone's hands the same way. The two sides and the judge must all obey them. Konki · C.I. 47 Order 1 The judge wears the same handcuffs as the parties.
  4. Where an enactment has prescribed a special procedure by which something is to be done, it is that procedure alone that is to be followed. If a law lays down one special way to do a thing, that is the only way allowed. You cannot pick your own shortcut. Boyefio v NTHC Properties Ltd [1997-98] 1 GLR 768 The road the law builds is the only road.
  5. The rules must be applied to achieve speedy and effective justice, avoid delay and unnecessary expense, and finally determine the whole dispute, avoiding a multiplicity of suits. The rules are meant to settle the whole quarrel quickly, cheaply, and in one case, not drag on or force people to keep suing over and over. C.I. 47, Order 1 r 1(2) Speed, sense, settle in one go.
  6. C.I. 47 governs civil proceedings in the High Court, and in the Circuit Court with such modifications as are necessary. C.I. 47 is the rulebook for civil cases in the High Court, and the Circuit Court uses the same book with small adjustments where needed. C.I. 47, Order 1 r 1(1) 47 fits the High Court; the Circuit alters the tailoring.
  7. Procedure is a handmaid, not a mistress: it serves substantive justice and must not be applied so rigidly that it causes injustice. The rules are a servant, not the boss. They exist to help give a fair result, so a judge should not follow them so stiffly that someone is treated unfairly. ex parte E.R.D.C. [2003-2004] SCGLR 21 (Akuffo JSC, adopting Collins MR) Rules serve justice; they never rule it.
  8. The sources of Ghanaian civil procedure are the 1992 Constitution, statute (the Courts Act), the Rules of Court, decisions of the Superior Courts, Practice Directions, and text writers. The rules come from six places. They are the 1992 Constitution, Acts of Parliament like the Courts Act, the court rulebooks, past decisions of the higher courts, official practice notes, and respected law textbooks. Konki, “What is Civil Procedure?” “Civil Suits Run Down Proper Tracks” — C, S, R, D, P, T.
  9. Each court has its own rules: Supreme Court (C.I. 16), Court of Appeal (C.I. 19), High Court & Circuit (C.I. 47), District Court (C.I. 59). Every court level runs on its own rulebook. The Supreme Court on C.I. 16, the Court of Appeal on C.I. 19, the High Court and Circuit on C.I. 47, and the District Court on C.I. 59. Konki Climb the C.I. numbers downward: 16 → 19 → 47 → 59.
  10. Judicial power belongs to the Judiciary alone — neither the President nor Parliament holds final judicial power. Only the courts have the final say in deciding cases. The President and Parliament cannot make that final call. Constitution art 125(3) No President’s gavel, no Speaker’s bench.
  11. The court hierarchy runs Supreme Court → Court of Appeal → High Court & Regional Tribunals → Circuit and District Courts. The courts sit in a ladder from top to bottom. The Supreme Court at the top, then the Court of Appeal, then the High Court and Regional Tribunals, then the Circuit and District Courts at the base. Constitution art 126(1) · Konki “Some Cows Always Climb Down” — Supreme, Court of Appeal, (High Court &) All Regional Tribunals, Circuit, District.
  12. The High Court has original jurisdiction in all matters; the Supreme Court holds exclusive original jurisdiction over constitutional interpretation, and a lower court must stay and refer such a question upward. The High Court can hear almost any kind of case first. But only the Supreme Court may decide what the Constitution means, so a lower court must pause and send any such question up to it. Constitution arts 140(1), 130 · Courts Act 1993 (Act 459) s.15 High Court hears everything; Supreme Court keeps the Constitution.
  13. The superior courts hold supervisory jurisdiction over lower courts and may quash an order by certiorari — but only for a jurisdictional error or a nullity; a non-jurisdictional procedural slip is a mere irregularity curable under Order 81, and certiorari is refused. The higher courts watch over the lower courts and can cancel a wrong order, but only when the lower court had no power to act at all. A small procedure mistake is just a fixable slip under Order 81, so the order stands. Constitution arts 132, 141 · Act 459 s.16 · ex parte Ansah-Otu [2009] SCGLR 141 Big slip breaks the order; small slip heals under Order 81.
  14. A civil action is independent of any criminal case on the same facts — but the claim must still rest on a recognised legal right. You can sue someone in a civil court even if a criminal case is going on over the same incident, because the two run separately. But your claim must still be built on a real legal right. Anarfi v Arthur · Badu v Boakye Two tracks, one wrong — but the claim must still rest on a real right.
  15. Proceedings are held in public by default; acting in court for another without authority is contempt of court. Court is open to the public as the normal rule. And standing up in court to represent someone when you have no permission to is an insult to the court that can be punished. C.I. 47, Order 1 r 2 and r 4 Open doors, signed authority.
  16. Parties hold no vested right in the rules of court — when Parliament amends a procedural rule, the new rule applies retrospectively to a case already on foot, unless there is good reason otherwise. Nobody owns a permanent right to keep the old court rules. If Parliament changes a procedure rule, the new rule normally applies even to cases already running, unless there is a good reason not to. Beng v Nyarko [1976] 1 GLR 78 · Konki New procedure rides backwards — yesterday’s case feels today’s rule.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • Wrong road. A statute lays down a special tribunal-and-committee procedure for a class of land disputes, but the plaintiff simply issues a High Court writ instea… → Boyefio v NTHC
  • Crime and civil wrong. The defendant is acquitted of assault in a criminal court; → Anarfi v Arthur
  • Rule vs substantive right. A rule of court, read literally, would extinguish a party's clear substantive right. → ex parte E.R.D.C.
  • Supervisory quash. A High Court grants an interlocutory injunction without ordering the undertaking as to damages that Order 25 r 9 attaches where the application is op… → ex parte Ansah-Otu
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
2 Application of the Rules of Court The governing order ORDER 1 C.I. 47 · O.1 rr 1–2 · O.81
Leading case Republic v High Court, Accra; Ex parte Allgate Co. Ltd (Amalgamated Bank Ltd, Interested Party)[2007-2008] SCGLR 1041; Civil Motion No. J5/22/2008; Dennislaw [2008] DLSC 6764 / 6446 — Non-compliance with the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules is treated as an irregularity that does not nullify the proc…
Moderate frequency 15 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law for the second chapter: where C.I. 47 applies, the overriding objective, the mercy of Order 81, the four nullity walls, the great divide between a void act and a mere irregularity, and Order 82's gap-filler. Fifteen rules, each with its authority and a one-line recall mnemonic — built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. C.I. 47 governs all civil proceedings in the High Court, and in the Circuit Court with such modifications as are necessary. C.I. 47 is the rulebook for every civil case in the High Court, and the Circuit Court follows it too, with small changes where it needs them. C.I. 47, Order 1 r 1(1) 47 fits the High Court; the Circuit alters the tailoring.
  2. The Rules must be interpreted and applied to achieve speedy and effective justice, avoid delay and unnecessary expense, and finally determine the whole dispute, avoiding a multiplicity of suits — the overriding objective. The rules are meant to reach a fair result fast, with no needless delay or cost, and to settle the whole quarrel in one case instead of many. C.I. 47, Order 1 r 1(2) Speed, sense, settle in one go.
  3. A failure to comply with the Rules is treated as an irregularity and does not, by itself, nullify the proceedings, any step taken, or any document, judgment or order in it. Breaking a rule is treated as a fixable slip, not a fatal one. By itself it does not cancel the case or any step in it. C.I. 47, Order 81 r 1(1) A slip is a stumble, not a death.
  4. The printed word “not” in Order 81 r 1(1) of some copies is a typographical error; the rule treats the failure as an irregularity that does not nullify. Some printed copies of the rule carry a stray word not by mistake. The true rule says the slip is fixable and does not cancel the case. Republic v High Court, Accra; ex parte Allgate Co. Gh. Ltd [2007-2008] SCGLR 1041 The stray “not” is the printer’s, not the law’s.
  5. The court may set aside the irregular proceeding or step, or allow amendments and make such order as it considers just — on terms (usually costs). The court can either cancel the faulty step or let you fix it, usually on terms such as paying the costs. C.I. 47, Order 81 r 1(2) Forgive on terms, or set aside — the court chooses.
  6. An irregularity is attacked by motion, stating the grounds, made within a reasonable time and before the applicant takes any further step after becoming aware of it. To complain about a slip you file a motion early, before you take any further step once you know about it. Sleep on it and you lose the right. C.I. 47, Order 81 r 2(1)-(2) Move promptly; don’t play on, then cry foul.
  7. Non-compliance is a curable irregularity unless it also breaches the Constitution, another statute, the rules of natural justice, or otherwise goes to jurisdiction — the four nullity walls. Most slips can be fixed, except where the breach also hits the Constitution, another law, fair hearing, or the court's power. Those four are fatal. ex parte Allgate [2007-2008] SCGLR 1041 (Date-Bah JSC) Four walls trip Order 81: Constitution, Statute, Natural Justice, Jurisdiction.
  8. Short service is a curable irregularity; non-service of a process that must be served breaches the fair-hearing rule (audi alteram partem), goes to jurisdiction, and is a nullity. Serving papers late is fixable, but not serving them at all denies the other side a fair hearing and kills the case. ex parte Allgate · Mosi v Bagyina Short is healable; absent is fatal.
  9. A void act is a legal nullity, incurably bad — you cannot put something on nothing; anything founded on it collapses. A void act counts as nothing in law and cannot be repaired. Anything built on top of it falls down with it. Mosi v Bagyina [1963] 1 GLR 337 (adopting Macfoy v UAC [1962] AC 152) You cannot put something on nothing.
  10. A void act may be set aside as of right (ex debito justitiae), even by the court on its own motion; an irregular act is valid until set aside in time. A void act can be wiped out as a right, at any time, even by the court itself. A mere slip stays good until someone properly challenges it in time. Mosi v Bagyina [1963] 1 GLR 337 Void: as of right, any time. Irregular: by motion, in time.
  11. A mandatory capacity endorsement (the foreign-plaintiff identity and address under Order 2 r 4(2)) is obligatory; its breach voids the writ and cannot be waived or cured under Order 81. A foreign plaintiff must put their identity and address on the writ. Leave it out and the writ is void, and nothing can save it later. Standard Bank Offshore Trust Co Ltd v NIB (2017) 113 GMJ 176; [2018] GHASC 18 Capacity must be on the writ before it issues — no after-care.
  12. Where a statute prescribes a special procedure, that procedure alone must be followed; a wrong mode of commencement goes to jurisdiction and is not curable under Order 81. When a law lays down one special way to start a case, that is the only way. Start it wrongly and the case is dead, beyond fixing. Boyefio v NTHC Properties Ltd [1997-98] 1 GLR 768 The road the law builds is the only road.
  13. Modern qualification: even a void order of a court of competent jurisdiction should be set aside with recourse to the court, not simply ignored. Even when an order is void, you should still go to the court to have it set aside rather than simply ignoring it. Republic v High Court, Accra; ex parte Afoda [2001-2002] SCGLR 786 Void still needs the court’s formal hand to set it aside.
  14. Where, in respect of any matter of procedure, no provision is made by these Rules, the practice for the time being in force in any common law country may where convenient be applied. Where the rulebook is silent on a point of procedure, the court may borrow the practice used in other common law countries when it is convenient. C.I. 47, Order 82 r 1; The Trustees, Synagogue Church of All Nations v Agyeman [2010] SCGLR 717; Fofie v Pomaa & Others [1974] 2 GLR 6 Rulebook silent? The court may, where convenient, borrow common-law practice.
  15. “Action” means a civil proceeding commenced by writ or in such other manner as the Rules or another enactment prescribe; a “pleading” means the formal allegations by the parties of their claims and defences, to give notice of the case for trial (in practice: claim, defence, counterclaim, reply — not a writ, summons or notice of motion). An action is the whole case once it is started. A pleading is each side's formal written statement of its claim or defence. C.I. 47, Order 82 r 3 (interpretation) Action is the whole case; a pleading is a party’s formal allegations in it.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • Short service of a motion. A party is served a motion with fewer clear days than the rule requires; → ex parte Allgate
  • Missing capacity endorsement. A writ fails to disclose that the plaintiff sues on behalf of persons resident abroad, and gives no address (Order 2 r 4(2)). → Standard Bank Offshore v NIB
  • Wrong mode of commencement. A statute prescribes a special procedure (e.g. → Boyefio v NTHC
  • Delay / further step after knowledge. A party discovers an irregularity, then files further processes and litigates on for months before applying to set it aside. → Order 81 r 2(2)
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
3 Commencement of Proceedings The governing order ORDER 2 C.I. 47 · rr 1–9 & Form 1
Leading case Akrong & Another v Bulley[1965] GLR 469, SC — capacity to sue must exist at the date the writ issues.
High-yield · examined 12× 20 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law for how a civil suit is born: the three modes of commencement, who the parties are, the writ of summons and its indorsements (claim · capacity · foreign plaintiff · lawyer's signature), the conditions some statutes impose before suit, sealing and the Cause Book, concurrent writs, service abroad with leave, the twelve-month clock and renewal, and the reliefs cluster. Twenty rules, each with its authority and a one-line recall mnemonic — built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. The party who commences a civil case is the “plaintiff”; the opposing party is the “defendant”. (A petition uses petitioner/respondent; an originating motion uses applicant/respondent.) The person who starts the case is the 'plaintiff'. The one being sued is the 'defendant'. Other kinds of action use other names, like petitioner and respondent, or applicant and respondent. C.I. 47, Order 2 r 1 Who sues is the plaintiff; who is sued is the defendant.
  2. All civil proceedings are commenced by filing a writ of summons unless an enactment provides otherwise (e.g. petition for election under PNDCL 284 or matrimonial under Act 367; originating motion for judicial review under O 55, habeas corpus under O 56, fundamental-rights enforcement under O 67). Almost every civil case begins with a writ of summons, unless a law points to another door, like a petition for an election or divorce, or a motion for judicial review or human-rights cases. C.I. 47, Order 2 r 2 · Jonah v Kulendi & Kulendi [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 272 · Ahinakwa II v Okaidja III [2011] 1 SCGLR 205 One door for all civil cases — the writ; statute may carve another.
  3. Every writ must be in Form 1 and be indorsed with a statement of the nature of the claim, relief or remedy sought (the indorsement of claim) — and must show the parties’ real addresses; the plaintiff’s own, not the lawyer’s. The writ uses the official Form 1 and must briefly say what you are claiming (the indorsement). It must also carry the parties' own real addresses, not the lawyer's. C.I. 47, Order 2 r 3(1)-(2) · Agbesi v Ghana Ports & Harbour Authority [2007-2008] 1 SCGLR 464 Form 1 fits the writ; the indorsement says what you want; addresses go to the parties, not the firm.
  4. A writ must be indorsed with a substantive claim, not an ancillary relief only; a writ disclosing no cause of action is a nullity. The writ must claim a real, main right, not just a side request. A writ that shows no genuine cause of action is worthless, as if it was never filed. Republic v High Court (Tema); Ex parte Owners of MV Esco Spirit [2003-2004] 1 SCGLR 689 · Emmanuel Rockson v Ilios Shipping Co [2010-2012] 1 GLR 144 No substantive claim on the face, no writ in the court.
  5. Where a party sues or is sued in a representative capacity, the writ must be indorsed with a statement of that capacity before it is filed. If you sue, or are sued, on behalf of someone else, such as an estate, a company or a family, the writ must say so before it is filed. C.I. 47, Order 2 r 4(1) · Republic v High Court, Accra; Ex parte Aryeetey [2003-2004] SCGLR 398 Say the capacity before the seal falls.
  6. The capacity to sue must exist at the date the writ issues; a writ issued without the required capacity is a nullity, and so are the proceedings founded on it. You must already have the right to sue on the day the writ is sealed. No capacity at that moment means no case at all, and everything built on it falls too. Akrong & Another v Bulley [1965] GLR 469, SC (Apaloo JSC) · Kowus Motors v Check Point Gh Ltd [2009] SCGLR 230 · Yorkwa v Duah [1992-1993] GBR 278 No capacity at the seal, no case at all.
  7. But the court may now allow an amendment to alter the capacity in which a party sues, if that capacity was one the party held at commencement or has since acquired — and may do so even after a relevant limitation period where it is just; Akrong is confined to its Fatal-Accidents context. Today the court can let you fix the capacity you sue in, if you held it at the start or have gained it since, even past a time-limit, where that is fair. The old harsh rule now applies only to its narrow facts. C.I. 47, Order 16 r 5(4) & (2) · Luca v Samir [2021] GHASC 4 (Pwamang JSC) The court may now amend a capacity you held — or have since acquired.
  8. A writ must be signed by the lawyer issuing it; the lawyer’s name, signature, business address, solicitor’s licence number and chambers registration number must appear on the writ. A chambers stamp alone is not enough — a writ without the lawyer’s name and signature is null and void. The issuing lawyer must personally sign the writ and show their name, address, licence and chambers numbers. A chambers stamp alone is not enough. Without the lawyer's name and signature the writ is void. C.I. 47, Order 2 r 5(1)(b),(3),(4) · Republic v HC (Fast Track) Accra; Ex parte Justin Pwavra Teriwajah [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 1247 · Henry Nuertey Karboe v Francis Amosa [2016] 101 GMJ 1 The lawyer signs in person; the chambers stamp does not issue writs.
  9. Some statutes impose a condition precedent on commencement: 30 days’ written notice to the Attorney-General before suing the State; one month’s notice to a Municipal/District Assembly; one month after a bill of fees is served before a lawyer may sue a client for fees. A writ issued without the required pre-condition is a nullity (or the proceedings will be stayed). Some claims need a warning step first, like 30 days' notice to the Attorney-General before suing the State, a month's notice to an Assembly, or a month after billing a client. Skip the required notice and the writ is void. State Proceedings Act 1998 (Act 555), s 10(1) · Local Governance Act 2016 (Act 936), s 210 · Legal Profession Act 1960 (Act 32), s 30 · Accam v Ghertey [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 343 · Nartey v Gati [2010] SCGLR 744 · Ayarna v Agyemang [1976] 1 GLR 306 Read the statute before the writ — some claims need the right notice first.
  10. A plaintiff suing by the order of, or on behalf of, a person resident outside Ghana must indorse the writ with that fact and with that person’s address. If you sue for, or on the orders of, someone living outside Ghana, the writ must say so and give that person's address. C.I. 47, Order 2 r 4(2) Foreign hand behind the writ? Show the hand and the address.
  11. A writ that conceals a foreign plaintiff’s non-resident status and offshore address is void, and the court is not bound to allow an amendment to cure it. Hiding that the real claimant lives abroad, and their offshore address, makes the writ void, and the court need not let you patch it. Naos Holding Inc v GCB [2005-2006] SCGLR 407, SC (Sophia Akuffo JSC) Hide the foreign claimant, the writ is hidden too — gone.
  12. Order 2 r 4(2) is mandatory; a writ breaching it is a nullity that cannot be waived or cured under Order 81 — for what is void cannot be waived. That foreign-disclosure rule is compulsory. A writ that breaks it is void, and something void cannot be excused or saved by the slip-curing rule (Order 81). Standard Bank Offshore Trust Co v NIB (2017) 113 GMJ 174; [2018] GHASC 18 (Benin JSC) · Hydrafoam Estates v Owusu [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 1117 What is void can never be waived; Order 81 has no power here.
  13. Every writ must be filed together with a statement of claim, and no writ may be issued unless a statement of claim is filed with it. Every writ must be filed together with a Statement of Claim. The registry will not issue a writ on its own. C.I. 47, Order 2 r 6 Writ never travels alone — the statement of claim walks with it.
  14. A writ is issued when it is sealed by the Registrar; it is then entered in the Cause Book and dated as of the day of issue. A writ is officially issued the moment the Registrar seals it. It is then entered in the court's book and dated that day. C.I. 47, Order 2 r 7(1),(3),(4) Filed at the registry; issued by the seal.
  15. A writ generally cannot be served outside Ghana — only a notice of the writ — and where notice is to be served abroad, the leave of the court must be obtained before the writ is issued; a writ issued for service abroad without leave is null and void, and Order 81 cannot save it. You usually cannot serve the writ itself outside Ghana, only a notice of it, and you must get the court's leave first. A writ marked for service abroad without leave is void, and Order 81 cannot rescue it. C.I. 47, Order 2 r 7(5) · Order 8 · Lokko v Lokko [1991] 2 GLR 184 · Friesland Frico Domo v Dachel Co Ltd [2012] 1 SCGLR 41 · Sanyo Electric Trading v Quarcoopome [2001-2002] 2 GLR 198 Out-of-Ghana writ? Leave first, seal second.
  16. Concurrent writs (true sealed copies, marked “concurrent”) may be issued at the plaintiff’s request to chase defendants in more than one place at once, and remain valid only for the unexpired life of the original. You may issue extra sealed copies (marked 'concurrent') to chase defendants in different places at once. They live and expire with the original. C.I. 47, Order 2 r 8(1),(3),(4) Twin writs live and die with their original.
  17. A writ is valid for service for twelve months from the date of issue; if it has not been served, the court may extend its validity by up to twelve months at a time on an application supported by affidavit — and per O 2 r 9(2) the application may be made before expiry or on such later day as the Court may allow. A writ is good for service for 12 months. If it is not served, the court can extend it by up to another 12 months at a time, on a sworn application, made before it expires or later if the court allows. C.I. 47, Order 2 r 9(1)-(3) · Sowah v Amarteifio [2008-2009] 2 GLR 694 · Sheldon v Brown Bayley’s Steelworks [1953] 2 QB 393 Twelve months to serve; renew by affidavit, before or after, on the court’s leave.
  18. An unserved writ that is not in force is “dead” for purposes of service only, not a nullity for other purposes; but the power to enlarge time cannot revive a dead writ so as to overreach a right that has vested or accrued in the meantime, such as a matured limitation defence. An expired, unserved writ is only 'dead' for serving, not wiped out for everything. But renewing it cannot be used to jump ahead of a right the other side gained meanwhile, like a matured time-bar. Alhassan v Boadu [1977] 2 GLR 248 · Potsia v Klu [1973] 2 GLR 47 · Lartey v Ofori (No. 2) [1973] 1 GLR 246 · Easy v Universal Anchorage Co [1974] 1 WLR 899 Renewal rewards diligence, never the careless.
  19. A relief sought on the writ but not repeated in the statement of claim is treated as abandoned — so claim every relief you actually want in both documents. A relief you put on the writ but do not repeat in the Statement of Claim is treated as given up, so claim everything you actually want in both documents. Antwi v Amponsah [1964] GLR 531 at 533 (Hayfron-Benjamin J) Say it twice — on the writ and in the statement of claim.
  20. The writ and the statement of claim are read together as one; where they differ the statement of claim governs and defines the real cause of action — so a reliefs-level slip on the writ is cured by a properly pleaded statement of claim. The writ and the Statement of Claim are read as one. Where they clash, the Statement of Claim wins and defines the real claim, so a small slip on the writ can be cured by a properly pleaded Statement of Claim. Unilever Ghana Ltd v KAMA Health Services [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 861 (Benin JSC) · Opoku (No. 2) v Axes Co Ltd (No. 2) [2012] 2 SCGLR 1214 (Gbadegbe JSC) · Conca Engineering (Gh) Ltd v Moses [1984-1986] 2 GLR 319, CA Writ and statement of claim read as one; the statement of claim governs.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • Capacity at the door. A plaintiff sues over a deceased's property but had not taken out letters of administration when the writ issued; → Akrong v Bulley
  • The hidden foreign plaintiff. A writ is issued for a claimant resident abroad, but it neither discloses the foreign residence nor gives an address; → Naos Holding v GCB
  • The stale writ. A writ is issued but never served; → Lartey v Ofori (No. 2)
  • Writ for service abroad without leave. A plaintiff issues a writ against a defendant resident abroad without first obtaining leave under Order 2 r 7(5); → Lokko v Lokko
  • Lawyer's signature missing. A writ is filed at the registry carrying only the law firm's chambers stamp; → Ex parte Teriwajah
  • Conditions precedent skipped. A plaintiff issues a writ against the State without giving the 30 days' notice under State Proceedings Act 1998 s 10(1); → Accam v Ghertey
  • Reliefs mismatch (writ vs statement of claim). A relief indorsed on the writ is not repeated in the statement of claim; → Antwi v Amponsah
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
4 Venue and Transfer The governing order ORDER 3 C.I. 47 · O.3 · O.68 · Act 459 s.104
Leading case Volden and Others v Ghana Goldfields Ltd[1999-2001] 1 GLR 462–466 — Order 3 venue rules are administrative only — a wrong venue is NOT a nullity.
High-yield · examined 2× 11 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law for the venue chapter: the Order 3 venue map, why a wrong venue never kills a case, the Volden balance-of-hardship test, and the iron rule that only the Chief Justice can transfer a case. Eleven rules, each with its authority and a one-line recall mnemonic — built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. There is only one High Court in Ghana — so “venue” is about the convenient Region, never a court’s power to hear the case; a wrong venue is administrative, not fatal. Ghana has just one High Court, so venue only picks the convenient region, not whether a court can hear you. A wrong region is an admin matter, not a killer. Constitution art 139 · Courts Act 1993 (Act 459) s.14(1)–(3) · ex parte Nana Diawuo Bediako II [2011] 2 SCGLR 704 One stadium, many gates — the gate is venue, not power.
  2. A cause or matter relating to immovable property must be commenced in the Region in which the property (or any part of it) is situated. A case about land or buildings must be started in the region where that property sits. C.I. 47, Order 3 r 1(1) Land lives where the land lives — sue there.
  3. All other causes are commenced in the Region where the defendant resides or carries on business; seized goods → where seized; a penalty against a public officer → where the cause of action arose; contract → where it was to be performed or where the defendant resides / works. Other cases start where the defendant lives or works. Seized goods go where they were seized, a penalty where the wrong happened, and a contract where it was to be carried out. C.I. 47, Order 3 r 1(2)–(5) Goods seized — sue where seized. Officer’s penalty — where it arose. Contract — where it was to be done. Else — where the defendant is.
  4. Where two or more defendants reside in different Regions, the cause or matter may be commenced in any of those Regions. When defendants live in different regions, you may start the case in any one of those regions. C.I. 47, Order 3 r 1(6) Two doors, one entry — pick either region.
  5. A cause commenced in the wrong Region does not die — it continues unless (a) the defendant objects to the venue before or at the time his defence is due, or (b) the Court reports to the Chief Justice that it ought to be transferred and the Chief Justice orders the transfer. Starting in the wrong region does not end the case. It carries on unless the defendant objects by the time the defence is due, or the Chief Justice orders a move. C.I. 47, Order 3 r 2(1) Wrong gate? Carry on — unless you cry foul before defence falls due.
  6. Proceedings taken before a venue objection are not affected by the objection — a wrong venue is never a nullity. Steps already taken before anyone objects to the venue still count. A wrong venue never cancels the case. C.I. 47, Order 3 r 2(2) Steps already walked do not unwalk.
  7. Order 3 venue rules are for administrative purposes only; the test for transfer is whether the defendant would suffer injustice if the action were heard in a court where he does not reside or carry on business — the balance of hardship — the transfer being effected by the Chief Justice. The venue rules are only for convenience. A case is moved only where keeping it would cause the defendant real injustice, and only the Chief Justice makes the move. Volden v Ghana Goldfields Ltd [1999-2001] 1 GLR 462 · General Portfolio Ltd v GNPC [1992] 2 GLR 138 · Oil & Fats Co v Hooper [1992] 1 GLR 326 (Manual Ch.4) Move the case only where injustice would stay if it didn’t.
  8. Only the Chief Justice may transfer a case from one Judge / Magistrate or court to another — by order under his hand, at any stage, with or without an application by a party. Only the Chief Justice can move a case from one judge or court to another. He may do it at any stage, even without anyone asking. Courts Act 1993 (Act 459), s.104(1) One brass key, one chamber — the Chief Justice signs.
  9. A transfer order may be general or special and must state its nature and extent; in urgency the Chief Justice may order by electronic means, but such an order has no effect until confirmed by a written order signed and sealed by the Chief Justice. A transfer order must say exactly what it covers. An urgent one sent electronically does nothing until the Chief Justice confirms it with a signed, sealed letter. Courts Act 1993 (Act 459), s.104(2)–(3) Phone-call transfer is a promise; the sealed letter is the law.
  10. Even a single motion or a contempt application is a “case” within s.104; a transfer made without the Chief Justice’s authorisation — e.g. by a registrar or another judge — is unlawful and a complete nullity (and, going to jurisdiction, cannot be cured under Order 81). Even a single motion counts as a case for this rule. A transfer done without the Chief Justice's say-so is unlawful and counts as nothing. Republic v High Court, Accra; Ex parte Yalley [2007-2008] 1 SCGLR 512 No CJ signature, no transfer — even a motion travels only on the Chief’s order.
  11. On a transfer up to the High Court, the Registrar files the papers at once and within 3 days notifies the parties; the defendant must enter appearance within 8 days, in default of which the plaintiff may, with leave, enter judgment with costs. The motion to transfer itself is ordinary motion machinery: by motion (O.19 r 1) on a supporting affidavit (O.20). When a case is sent up to the High Court, the Registrar files it at once and tells the parties within three days, and the defendant has eight days to appear. C.I. 47, Order 68 rr 1–5 · Order 19 r 1 · Order 20 Transferred in: filed at once, told within three, appearance within eight.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • "Wrong venue" raised too late. A defendant files his defence, contests the matter for months, then suddenly argues the suit was filed in the wrong region and must be struck out. → before or at the time the defence is due
  • Land case in the wrong region. A dispute over land in the Volta Region is commenced in the High Court, Accra. → Volden
  • The back-door transfer. A registrar (or another judge), without any order from the Chief Justice, moves a pending motion from the assigned judge to a different judge, who th… → Republic v High Court, Accra; Ex parte Yalley
  • Two High Courts in one region (intra-regional). A region has two High Courts; → Volden v Ghana Goldfields
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
5 Parties The governing order ORDERS 4–6 C.I. 47 · O.4 · O.5 · O.6
Leading case Sam (No.1) v Attorney-General(2000) SCGLR 102 — The court will add any person whose presence is necessary to enable it effectually and completely adjudicate upon and s…
High-yield · examined 9× 14 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of joinder: who must be in the room (Order 4), the 14-day clock that brings a joined party to life, the head-of-family and representative-action rules, and the one pivot that decides half the exam — a wrong party is curable; a wrong capacity is fatal. Fourteen rules, each with its authority and a one-line recall mnemonic — built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. Two or more persons may be joined in one action, without leave, where a common question of law or fact would arise and all rights to relief arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions. Two or more people can be sued, or sue, together in one case, without permission, when their claims share a common question and grow out of the same set of events. C.I. 47, Order 4 r 3(1) Common question + same transaction = one action, no leave.
  2. No proceedings shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of any party; the court determines the issues so far as they affect the parties before it. Adding the wrong party, or leaving one out, never throws out the whole case. The court simply decides the issues for the parties properly before it. C.I. 47, Order 4 r 5(1) · In re Ashalley Botwe Lands; Agbosu v Kotey [2003-2004] 1 SCGLR 420 · Jonah v Duodu Kumi [2003-2004] SCGLR 50 Wrong party never kills the case — the court spins the door.
  3. At any stage, of its own motion or on application, the court may strike out an improperly or unnecessarily joined party, and add a person who ought to have been joined or whose presence is necessary to determine all matters completely. At any stage, by itself or on request, the court can remove a party who should not be there and add one who should, so the whole dispute can be settled. C.I. 47, Order 4 r 5(2) Strike out the unneeded; add in the needed — at any stage.
  4. No person may be added as a plaintiff without that person’s consent, signified in writing; the unwilling are made defendants. Nobody can be put on the plaintiff's side without agreeing in writing. Someone needed but unwilling is added as a defendant instead. C.I. 47, Order 4 r 5(3) No one is dragged onto the plaintiff’s side — consent in writing or join as defendant.
  5. An application to be added as a party is made by motion supported by an affidavit showing the applicant’s interest in the matter in dispute. To be added to a case, you apply by motion backed by an affidavit showing your interest in the dispute. C.I. 47, Order 4 r 5(4) Motion + affidavit showing your interest — that is the door in.
  6. After a joinder order the writ must be amended within 14 days (or as the order directs) and indorsed with the order; an added person does not become a party until the writ is amended and, if a defendant, served — miss the 14 days and the joinder lapses. After a joinder order the writ must be amended within 14 days and marked with the order. The new party is not really in until that is done (and, for a defendant, served). Miss the 14 days and the joinder lapses. C.I. 47, Order 4 r 5(5),(7) · Gandaa v Gandaa [1989-90] 2 GLR 58 Win the order, lose the paperwork — fourteen days or the joinder dies.
  7. The test for joinder is whether the person’s presence is necessary to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions in the cause — the interest-of-justice test (Lord Denning MR in Gurtner). The real test for joining someone is simple. Is that person needed for the court to settle the whole quarrel properly and completely? If yes, join them. Gurtner v Circuit & Motor Insurers’ Bureau [1968] 2 QB 587 @ 595 · Sam (No.1) v Attorney-General (2000) SCGLR 102 · Sai v Tsuru III [2010] SCGLR 762 · Tsatsu Tsikata v The Republic [2007-2008] SCGLR 702 One question: is this person needed to settle the whole quarrel? If yes, join.
  8. Misjoinder is cured by substitution, not dismissal — the court swaps in the proper party and decides on the merits; but you must have a cause of action against whoever you sue. Suing the wrong party is fixed by swapping in the right one, not by dismissing the case. But you must actually have a claim against whoever you sue. Ampratwum Mfg Co Ltd v DIC (SC, 2009) · In re Ashalley Botwe Lands [2003-2004] 1 SCGLR 420 · C.I. 47, Order 4 r 5(2) Wrong defendant? Substitute — don’t dismiss. But you must have a cause against whoever you sue.
  9. The occupant of a stool or skin, or the head of family under customary law, may sue and be sued on behalf of, or as representing, the stool or family. A stool or skin sues and is sued through its occupant. A family does so through its head, under customary law. C.I. 47, Order 4 r 9(1)–(2) The stool speaks through its occupant; the family speaks through its head.
  10. If the head refuses, fails, or is unable to act, any family member may sue on the family’s behalf, serving a copy of the writ on the head; the head has 3 days to object, take over, or be joined. If the family head will not or cannot act, any family member may sue for the family, but must serve a copy on the head, who then has 3 days to object, take over, or be joined. C.I. 47, Order 4 r 9(3)–(5) Head silent? A member may sue, serve the head, and run the three-day clock.
  11. Where numerous persons share the same interest, one or more may sue or be sued as representing all; the judgment binds all represented but is enforced against a non-party only with leave. Where many people share the same interest, one (or a few) can sue or be sued for all of them. The judgment binds everyone represented, though enforcing it against a non-party needs leave. C.I. 47, Order 4 r 11 · Owusu v Adjei [1991] 2 GLR 493 Same interest, common grievance, shared benefit — one may speak for all.
  12. A representative capacity must be stated in the title, the writ’s indorsement, and every subsequent pleading; a defective endorsement is curable by leave to amend, even at a late stage. A representative capacity must be stated in the title, the writ, and every later pleading. A faulty statement can be fixed by amendment, even late. Ghana Muslims Rep Council v Salifu [1975] 2 GLR 246, CA · Nkuah v Konadu & Boateng [2009] SCGLR 134 (Anin Yeboah JSC, citing C.I. 47 O 2 r 4) Say the capacity in three places — title, writ, every pleading.
  13. Capacity is a question of fact: if challenged, the party suing in a representative character must prove it or be dismissed; if not challenged, no burden arises, and submitting to judgment admits the capacity. It may, however, be raised at any stage — even on appeal — and even by the court suo motu. Capacity is a fact. If challenged, the person suing in a representative role must prove it or be dismissed. If not challenged, no burden arises. But it can be raised at any time, even on appeal, even by the court itself. Republic v High Court; Ex parte Aryeetey [2003-2004] SCGLR 399 = [2003-2005] 1 GLR 537 · Fosua v Dufie [2009] SCGLR 310 (Atuguba JSC) · Asante-Appiah v Amponsah [2009] SCGLR 90 · Kowus Motors v Check Point Ghana Ltd [2009] SCGLR 230 Challenge in time and prove; ignore it and no burden — but the door stays open to raise it later.
  14. The exam pivot: a wrong party (misjoinder / non-joinder) is curable and never defeats a suit; but suing in a representative capacity you do not hold is a nullity — no amendment can save it. The big split is this. A wrong party is always fixable and never sinks a case (a revolving door), but suing in a capacity you do not actually hold is a nullity (a steel vault). C.I. 47, Order 4 r 5(1) · contrast Akrong v Bulley [1965] GLR 469, SC (Part 3) · Kowus Motors v Check Point [2009] SCGLR 230 Wrong party = revolving door; wrong capacity = steel vault.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • "You sued the wrong people — strike it out!". A defendant argues the plaintiff sued the wrong party and left out a necessary one, and asks the court to dismiss the entire suit. → Gurtner
  • Joined, then forgotten — the 14-day lapse. A court grants an order joining X as a co-defendant. → Gandaa v Gandaa
  • Representative capacity not endorsed. A plaintiff sues "for the family" but the writ and pleadings nowhere state his representative capacity; → Ghana Muslims Rep Council v Salifu
  • A late, half-hearted capacity objection. A defendant fights the merits for months, submits to part of the process, then belatedly mutters that the plaintiff "lacked capacity." → Republic v High Court; Ex parte Aryeetey
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
6 Service of Process The governing order ORDERS 7–8 C.I. 47 · O.7 · O.8
Leading case Barclays Bank of Ghana Ltd v Ghana Cables Co Ltd[1998-99] SCGLR 1 — Service is a condition precedent to jurisdiction.
High-yield · examined 13× 14 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of service: how the writ actually reaches the defendant. Personal service is the default (Order 7), the special-person rules name who receives it, substituted service rescues you when a man hides, and service abroad is its own wing (Order 8). Fourteen rules climbing one ladder, each with a one-line recall mnemonic — and the one pivot that decides the marks: no service / wrong statutory mode is fatal; notice served abroad without leave is curable. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. The purpose of service is to give the defendant notice of the case, so that he is aware of it and can resist what is sought against him. Service just means officially letting the other side know a case has started against them, so they get a fair chance to answer it. Dakar Ltd v Industrial Chemical & Pharmaceutical Co Ltd [1981] GLR 453 (purpose-of-service line; company holding now read with Act 992 + Barclays) Service is the law’s knock at the door — it exists to give notice.
  2. A document is served by a bailiff of the court or a registered process server; a party may direct (guide) the service but may not serve himself as of right. A court officer, a bailiff or registered server, delivers the papers. You may point them to the person, but you cannot hand the papers over yourself. C.I. 47, Order 7 r 1 A bailiff carries the writ; the party may point, never pass.
  3. A document must be served personally — by leaving a copy with the very person to be served — unless the Rules provide otherwise or the court directs; if hindered by violence or obstruction, leaving it as near as practicable suffices. The papers should normally be put into the hands of the actual person. If that person turns violent or blocks the server, leaving it as close to them as possible counts. C.I. 47, Order 7 rr 2(1), 3 Hand to hand by default; if blocked, as near as practicable.
  4. A party may opt in to electronic service at the time of filing; if he does, he is deemed served when the document is sent by electronic means (a hard copy still goes to the Registrar for verification). You may choose electronic (email) delivery when you first file. If you do, you count as served the moment it is sent. It is never assumed unless you opted in. C.I. 47, Order 7 r 3A (added by C.I. 122, 2019) Email service is a choice you make at filing — never assumed.
  5. The law names who receives the document for each kind of party: a company’s senior officer (read with Act 992 s.291); a stool’s occupant/linguist; a family’s head, caretaker of family property or principal member; a prison’s officer-in-charge; a Ministry’s administrative head; a person under disability per Order 5 r 9. (Marful-Sau extension: judges → Judicial Secretary; security agencies → Commanding Officer; MPs immune while in Parliament or going to/from — Constitution art 117.) Some parties are not a single individual, so the law names who stands in to receive for them. It is a senior officer for a company, the head for a family, the occupant or linguist for a stool, and so on. C.I. 47, Order 7 r 5 · Companies Act 2019 (Act 992) s.291 · 1992 Constitution art 117 Every party has a named mouthpiece — find the right hand to receive.
  6. Where personal service has failed after three or more attempts (with further attempts risking undue delay), or is otherwise impracticable, the court may order substituted service. If hand delivery fails after about three real attempts, or simply is not workable, the court may allow another way to reach the person. This is called substituted service. C.I. 47, Order 7 r 6(1) Three failed attempts (or impracticable) opens the substituted door.
  7. The application for substituted service is made ex parte (without notice to the other side) and must be supported by an affidavit stating the facts on which it is founded. You ask for that other way without telling the other side, so a person who is dodging is not tipped off, and you must back the request with a sworn statement of the facts. C.I. 47, Order 7 r 6(2) Ex parte motion + truthful affidavit — never warn the dodger.
  8. The court may direct substituted service by service in accordance with rule 4, by delivery to an agent likely to pass it on, by registered post, by a notice put up at the court or the person’s residence/business, or by advertisement in the media — and may vary the method. The court chooses a realistic backup route. It could be registered post, a close associate, a notice posted at the home or court, or a media advert, and it can switch the method if needed. C.I. 47, Order 7 r 6(3)–(5) Post, agent, posting, advert — the court picks the realistic route.
  9. Substituted service is for where personal service is impracticable, not impossible — if there is no realistic chance the substitute will reach the person it is refused; and it always needs a court order (actual notice without an order is not personal service). This backup is only for when reaching the person is hard, not truly impossible. If no backup could realistically reach them it is refused, and you always need the court's order first. Kombat v Bediako [1971] 1 GLR 196 · Bawa v Oyegoke [1977] 2 GLR 412 · Poku v Kwabena [1972] 2 GLR 75 Impracticable yes; impossible no — and never self-help.
  10. A judgment obtained on a false affidavit of substituted service — falsely deposing the defendant was “evading service” when no real attempt was made — is set aside for fraud. If you lie on oath to get that order, claiming someone evaded you when you never really tried, any judgment you win is set aside as fraud. S.A. Turqui & Bros v Dahabieh [1987-88] 2 GLR 486 Lie to win the order, lose the judgment — fraud unravels it all.
  11. Service is proved by an affidavit of service stating by and on whom, when, where and how it was served; signed by the server it is prima facie evidence of service, recorded in the Process Book. You prove delivery with a signed, sworn note stating who served, who was served, and when, where and how. The court's own register backs it up. C.I. 47, Order 7 rr 9, 11 · In Re Yendi Skin Affairs; Andani v Abudulai [1982-83] GLR 1080 Who, when, where, how — the affidavit + the Process Book prove it.
  12. A writ is served separately on each defendant; a lawyer’s written undertaking to accept service is good service; and an unconditional appearance cures a service defect, the writ being deemed served on the date of appearance. Each defendant gets their own copy. A lawyer's written promise to accept service counts, and if a defendant simply shows up to fight the case, a small service slip is forgiven. C.I. 47, Order 7 r 12 One writ per defendant; an unconditional appearance heals a service slip.
  13. Where the principal is abroad but contracted in Ghana through a local agent still acting for him, the court may, on an ex parte application, order service on the agent — the alter ego of the principal — as effective service on the principal. If the real defendant is abroad but a local stand-in still runs their affairs here, the court can let you serve that stand-in, and it counts as serving the absent boss. C.I. 47, Order 7 r 13 · Republic v High Court; Ex parte Kusada Local agent of an absent principal = the principal’s alter ego.
  14. No writ is served out of the jurisdiction — only notice of the writ, and only with leave (Order 8; the no-writ-abroad rule rests on State sovereignty — Abela v Baadarani; leave is given sparingly — Signal Oil v Bristow). The exam pivot: no service / breach of a statutory mode goes to jurisdiction and is FATAL (Barclays v Ghana Cables; GCB v Tabury); but serving notice abroad without leave is now a mere irregularity, CURABLE under Order 81 and waived by participation (Friesland Frico Domo v Dachel, overtaking Lokko v Lokko) — unless the defect goes to actual want of jurisdiction. You never send the writ itself abroad, only a notice of it, and only with the court's leave. Keep the big split in mind. No service at all is fatal, but merely missing that leave is a fixable slip, especially once the other side joins in. C.I. 47, Order 8 rr 1–2 · Barclays Bank v Ghana Cables [1998-99] SCGLR 1 · GCB v Tabury [1977] 1 GLR 320 · Friesland Frico Domo v Dachel [2012] 1 SCGLR 41 · Sanyo Electric Trading v Quarcoopome [2001-2002] 2 GLR 198 · contrast Lokko v Lokko [1991] 2 GLR 184 · Abela v Baadarani [2013] UKSC 44 · Signal Oil & Gas v Bristow Helicopters [1976] 1 GLR 371 Border crossings: writ stays, notice travels; no service = fatal, no leave = curable.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • The chapter's pivot — fatal flaw or curable slip?. A defendant who took part in the suit up to judgment later complains that the originating process reached him defectively, and asks that the whole ju… → no
  • "He has vanished — just advertise" — impracticable vs impossible. A bailiff has tried personal service repeatedly and failed; → or
  • The principal abroad, the agent at home. A defendant resides outside Ghana but contracted here through a local agent who is still actively managing the very matter in dispute. → Republic v High Court; Ex parte Kusada
  • Posting the writ itself to a foreign address. A plaintiff, without applying for leave, posts the writ to the defendant's address in another country and later relies on it. → writ
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
7 Appearance & Default of Appearance The governing order ORDERS 9–10 C.I. 47 · O.9 · O.10
Leading case Republic v High Court, Denu; Ex parte Avadali IVCite by name — A conditional appearance is an appearance under protest — reserved for the writ, the service, or the jurisdiction only.
High-yield · examined 12× 17 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of the price of silence. Order 9 (the 8-day appearance clock; the conditional-appearance trap; the 14-day window to attack the writ) feeding Order 10 (default judgment by claim-type; the proof-of-service gate; set aside on Botchway's two-step test). Seventeen rules climbing one ladder, each with a one-line recall mnemonic — and the three pivots that decide the marks: liquidated vs unliquidated, conditional vs unconditional, regular vs irregular. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. A defendant's reply to a writ is a Notice of Appearance — Form 5 of the Schedule, in triplicate, with two stamped envelopes, handed in at or sent by post to the registry. The defendant's first formal answer to a writ is a Notice of Appearance. It is official Form 5, three copies, with two stamped envelopes, handed in or posted to the registry. C.I. 47, Order 9 rr 2–3; Form 5 Form 5, in triplicate, with two stamped envelopes — the defendant’s first move.
  2. The notice must state the defendant's residential AND occupational address; failure to comply (after a court order to do so) is treated as not having entered appearance; and a fake address may have the appearance set aside. The notice must give the defendant's home address and work address. Refusing (after a court order) counts as not appearing at all, and a fake address can have the appearance cancelled. C.I. 47, Order 9 rr 1(2)–(3), 3(4) Two real addresses — residential and occupational; fake one and the appearance falls.
  3. On receipt the Registrar stamps each copy with the date and time, enters the appearance in the Cause Book, files one copy, posts one to the plaintiff and returns one to the defendant. When the registry receives it, the Registrar stamps the date and time, records it in the court's book, keeps one copy, posts one to the plaintiff and returns one to the defendant. C.I. 47, Order 9 r 4 Stamp, Cause Book, file, post, return — the registry’s five-step machinery.
  4. Where the writ is served inside Ghana, the time limited for appearance is 8 days after service; where notice of a writ is served abroad, it is the time fixed in the leave order under O.7 r 13(2) or O.8 r 4. If the writ was served inside Ghana, the defendant has 8 days to appear. If notice was served abroad, the time is whatever the court's leave order set. C.I. 47, Order 9 r 5 Inside Ghana, eight days; abroad, whatever the leave order says.
  5. A defendant may file appearance after the time, so long as judgment has not yet been entered — but does not get extra time for the next steps unless the court orders; after judgment, appearance is only by leave. A defendant can still appear late, so long as no judgment has yet been entered, but gets no extra time for the next steps unless the court allows. After judgment, appearing needs permission. C.I. 47, Order 9 r 6 Late but pre-judgment: allowed, but no extra time follows.
  6. A defendant may file a conditional appearance — but it is treated for all purposes as unconditional UNLESS the defendant applies under rule 8 within the time limited, and the court makes an order on that application. A defendant can enter a protest (conditional) appearance, but it counts as a full, unconditional one unless they follow it up with the proper application in time and the court rules on it. C.I. 47, Order 9 r 7 A protest is provisional — follow it up under r 8 or it dissolves into submission.
  7. The grounds of conditional appearance are narrow — only the issue or validity of the writ, the service of it, or the jurisdiction of the court (Ex parte Avadali IV). It is NOT permissible on the ground that the defendant has a "good defence" or that the action is "frivolous / vexatious / abuse" (Ex parte Aryeetey [2003-2004] 1 SCGLR 398, Kpegah JSC); failure to disclose a cause of action is its own door — Order 11 r 18 (Amissah-Abadoo v Abadoo). You can only protest on three things. They are whether the writ was properly issued or valid, whether it was properly served, or whether the court has jurisdiction. 'I have a good defence' or 'no cause of action' are not grounds for this step. Republic v High Court, Denu; Ex parte Avadali IV · Republic v High Court, Accra; Ex parte Aryeetey (Ankrah Interested Party) [2003-2004] 1 SCGLR 398 · Amissah-Abadoo v Abadoo [1973] 1 GLR 490 Three doors only: writ, service, jurisdiction. Anything else is the wrong door.
  8. A defendant may, at any time before filing appearance, or within 14 days after filing a conditional appearance, apply for an order to (a) set aside the writ or service of it; (b) declare it has not been served; or (c) discharge the leave for overseas service. Before appearing, or within 14 days of a conditional appearance, the defendant can ask the court to set aside the writ or its service, declare it was not served, or cancel leave for overseas service. C.I. 47, Order 9 r 8 Before appearance, or fourteen days after a conditional — that is the window.
  9. The burden of objecting in due time is the defendant's — sleep on it and the conditional appearance becomes unconditional, or (if none was filed) the defendant falls into default of appearance. It is the defendant's job to object in time. Sit on it and the protest hardens into a full appearance, or, if none was filed, the defendant slips into default. Dede II v Ansah & Others [1980] GLR 746 The clock is the defendant’s responsibility; silence hardens into submission.
  10. An unconditional appearance is a fresh step in the action and waives the irregularity in the issue or service of the writ — the defendant is treated as submitting to the jurisdiction. Waiver does NOT cure a total want of jurisdiction conferred by statute or the Constitution. Appearing without protest is a step forward that forgives any slip in issuing or serving the writ. The defendant is taken to accept the court's authority. But it cannot create jurisdiction the law never gave the court. Quaiko v Mobil Oil (Gh) Ltd [1977] GLR 461 · Asare v Kajima-Shimizu Joint Ventures [1992] 2 GLR 284 · Edusei v Diners Club Suisse SA [1982-83] 2 GLR 809 Walk in without protest and you cannot walk back out — submission is a one-way door.
  11. A liquidated demand is a specific sum due and payable under or by virtue of a contract — already ascertained, or capable of being ascertained as a matter of arithmetic. A liquidated demand is a fixed, exact sum owed under a contract, already known, or worked out by simple arithmetic. Fofie v Pomaa & Others [1972] 2 GLR 6 Fixed figure or pure arithmetic — that is what makes a demand liquidated.
  12. Where the claim is liquidated only and the defendant fails to appear → final judgment + costs (O.10 r 1; interest under r 1(2) does not break liquidation). Where unliquidated only → interlocutory judgment; assessment date fixed; defendant heard on damages only (rr 2 + 3(3)). If the claim is only for a fixed sum and the defendant does not appear, you get final judgment plus costs. If it is for damages to be assessed, you get a provisional (interlocutory) judgment, the amount fixed later, and the defendant heard only on how much. C.I. 47, Order 10 rr 1, 2, 3(3) Liquidated → final; unliquidated → interlocutory, with assessment to come.
  13. Other claim shapes: detinue (r 3) — delivery / value; possession of immovable property (r 4) — joint-defendant brake; mortgagee → Order 59; mixed claims (r 5) — each head takes its own shape; catch-all (r 6) — proceed as if defendant had appeared (file affidavit of due service of writ + statement of claim; go to trial). Other claim types take their own shape on default, such as recovery of goods, possession of land (with a brake where there are joint defendants), and mixed claims, where each part takes its own form. C.I. 47, Order 10 rr 3–6 Each head takes the judgment its own shape would have got alone.
  14. No default judgment is entered under Order 10 unless the plaintiff files an affidavit proving due service of the writ — or produces the writ indorsed by the defendant's lawyer accepting service; an applicant against an unappearing party must satisfy the court of default. No default judgment is allowed unless the plaintiff proves the writ was properly served, by affidavit, or by the writ marked by the defendant's lawyer accepting service. Proof of service is the gate. C.I. 47, Order 10 r 7 · Barclays Bank v Ghana Cables [1998-99] SCGLR 1 No proof of service, no default — the affidavit is the gate.
  15. Moneylender and mortgage actions cannot grab a default judgment as of right — leave of the court is required (notice to the defendant; affidavit of service), and only for the amount actually due. Moneylender and mortgage cases cannot simply grab a default judgment. They need the court's leave (with notice to the defendant and proof of service), and only for the amount really due. C.I. 47, Order 10 rr 9–10 · Bonsu v Doe [1982-83] GLR 778 Moneylender and mortgage walk through leave, not past the registrar.
  16. A default judgment may grant possession of land but not a declaration of title without evidence — silence wins possession, title must be proved by clear and acceptable evidence; a title judgment on default with no evidence is void and grounds no estoppel. On default the court may give possession of land, but not a declaration of ownership without evidence. Silence can lose possession, but title must still be proved. A title judgment with no evidence is void. Conca Engineering (Gh) Ltd v Moses [1984-86] 2 GLR 319, CA Silence wins possession; title still needs proof.
  17. The court may, on such terms as it thinks fit, set aside or vary any default judgment (O.10 r 8). Step 1 — regular or irregular? Irregular (no proof of service / before time / over-claim / no indorsement) → set aside as of right and without terms (within reasonable time, no fresh step). Step 2 — if regular, two limbs (Botchway): (i) a reasonable explanation for the default (the defendant intended to obey the writ's express command but was prevented by unavoidable circumstances) AND (ii) a reasonable defence on the merits, exhibited, such that it would be unjust not to try the case on the merits. Haruna v Arts Council: no fixed time, only reasonable time. Lamptey v Hammond: discretion unfettered but exercised judicially. Lamptey's separate stranger-to-judgment rule is NOT the defendant's own two-limb test. The court can set aside a default judgment. First ask whether it was regular or irregular. If irregular (say, no proof of service, too early, or over-claimed) it is set aside as of right. If regular, the defendant must show both a good reason for the default and a real defence on the merits. C.I. 47, Order 10 r 8 · Botchway v Daniels [1991] 2 GLR 262 (HC, Cape Coast, Kpegah J) · Agyeman v Ghana Railway & Ports Authority (1969) CC 60, CA · Haruna v Arts Council [1992] 2 GLR 1 · Lamptey v Hammond [1987-88] 1 GLR 327 First, regular or irregular? If regular, both limbs — reason for the silence AND a defence on the merits.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • Pivot #1 — liquidated or unliquidated (shape of the default judgment). A plaintiff sues for (a) GH₵250,000 unpaid invoice value under a written supply contract, plus interest at 21% per annum; → Fofie v Pomaa
  • Pivot #2 — conditional appearance on the wrong grounds, 14 days lapse. Defendant files a conditional appearance asserting (i) he has a complete defence on the merits to the action and (ii) the action is vexatious and an… → Avadali IV
  • Pivot #3 — set-aside: regular or irregular, two limbs. Default judgment for GH₵400,000 and possession of land is entered against the defendant. → Botchway
  • The gate failure — Barclays bridges into Order 10 r 7. Plaintiff obtains a default judgment but the case file contains no affidavit of due service of the writ, only a plaintiff's letter saying the writ wa… → Barclays Bank v Ghana Cables
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
8 Pleadings The governing order ORDER 11 C.I. 47 · O.11
Leading case Dam v J.K. Addo & Brothers[1962] 2 GLR 200–206 — Pleadings exist to give the other side notice of the nature of the claim or defence — and once filed, they fence the tr…
High-yield · examined 13× 19 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of the case finally framed. Order 11 orchestrates the whole rhythm — Statement of Claim with the writ (r.1), Defence in 14 days (r.2), Reply in 7 (r.3), pleadings closed seven days later (r.19). Three exam pivots cut across every problem question: facts not evidence (r.7), silence is admission unless specifically traversed (r.13), the rule against departure (r.10) — and the fourth that decides the strike-out: two evidence regimes on r.18. Nineteen rules in one ladder, each with a one-line recall mnemonic — and the discipline of Unilever v Kama Health Services that quietly loses marks on every careless SoC. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. Pleadings exist to do three jobs — notice (the other side knows the case to meet); fence (at trial, parties stay inside what they pleaded; the judge stays inside it too); record (the dispute is fixed in writing so it cannot be re-litigated). A pleading is the written claim or defence. It has three jobs. It tells the other side the case (notice), it fixes the boundaries of the fight so neither side nor the judge wanders off (the fence), and it leaves a permanent record. Dam v J.K. Addo & Bros [1962] 2 GLR 200; Mohammed Odartey Lamptey v Lands Commission (SC, Civil Appeal No. J4/18/2015); Blay v Pollard and Morris [1930] 1 KB 628, CA at 634; Wuo v Kwarku [1961] GLR 235 Notice, fence, record — the three jobs every pleading must do.
  2. The Statement of Claim must travel with the writ (or notice of writ); fail that and the defendant may apply to dismiss the action. The Statement of Claim, the spelled-out story of your claim, must go out together with the writ. Send the writ alone and the defendant can have the whole action thrown out. C.I. 47, Order 11 r 1 Writ never travels alone — SoC with it, or the action is dismissable.
  3. The Defence is filed within 14 days of the end of the appearance window (unless the court gives leave to the contrary; if served with a summary-judgment motion before defending, the 14 days runs from the order on the application). The defendant files the Defence within 14 days after the time for entering appearance ends, unless the court allows longer, or a summary-judgment motion has paused things. C.I. 47, Order 11 r 2 Fourteen days after appearance closes — that is the Defence clock.
  4. The Reply is filed within 7 days of service of the Defence — but only where necessary; if no Reply is filed, joinder of issue applies under r.14(1). If the plaintiff needs to answer the Defence, that Reply comes within 7 days. A Reply is filed only when truly needed. Skip it and the law automatically treats the Defence as denied. C.I. 47, Order 11 r 3 Seven days for the Reply — only if needed; silence joins issue for you.
  5. No pleading after the Reply may be filed except with leave of the court — rejoinder, rebutter, surrebutter are rare birds. After the Reply, you cannot keep firing more papers back and forth. Any further pleading needs the court's permission first. C.I. 47, Order 11 r 4 After the Reply, leave or nothing.
  6. Pleadings may be filed during the long vacation — but the time prescribed by the rules for filing pleadings is suspended (O.80 r.2). You can file; the clock pauses. You may still file pleadings during the courts' long vacation, but the filing deadlines pause during that period. You can file, but the clock stops. C.I. 47, Order 11 r 5; Order 80 r 2 Long vacation — file if you must, but the clock pauses.
  7. Every pleading wears the same uniform on its face — year & suit number, title, court / region / town, description, time & date filed; paragraphed body; indorsed with party / lawyer name & address; signed; numbers may be figures, words, or both. Every pleading must wear the same standard heading and layout. That means the year and case number, the title, the court and place, who is filing, the date, numbered paragraphs and a signature. C.I. 47, Order 11 r 6 Nine items on the face of every pleading — masthead first, always.
  8. Pivot #1 — facts, not evidence. Every pleading contains a summary statement of material facts only, not the evidence by which they are proved; the effect of a document, not its words (unless words themselves are material); presumed facts may stay out; condition-precedent occurrence is implied; attaching exhibits is forbidden (it is "evidence in pleadings"). Plead the facts that matter, not the proof of them. State what a document does, not its exact words, and never staple documents (exhibits) to the pleading. Proof comes later at trial. C.I. 47, Order 11 r 7; Godka Group v PS International [2001-2002] SCGLR 918; Mary Hansen Sackey v Evelyn Palm (HC, GJ/1484/2018) Plead facts, not evidence — never annex the contract to the SoC.
  9. Matters that must be specifically pleaded in any pleading subsequent to a SoC: performance · release · any limitation provision · fraud · illegality (the rule's named list — non-exhaustive); plus any matter that would (a) defeat the opposite party's case, (b) take it by surprise, or (c) raise issues fresh to the preceding pleading. Konki's settled extensions: forgery, failure to comply with statute, estoppel, statutory defences, waiver. Statute of limitation must be pleaded, or you cannot rely on it. Fraud must be specifically pleaded + particulars + proved beyond reasonable doubt. Possession actions: every ground specifically (r.8(2)). Certain defences must be spelled out by name, such as fraud, illegality, a time-bar, release or performance. Fail to raise one specifically and you cannot rely on it later. C.I. 47, Order 11 r 8; Dolphyne (No.3) v Speedline Stevedoring [1996-97] SCGLR 515; Nti v Anima [1984-86] 2 GLR 134; Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) s.13(1) Performance, release, limitation, fraud, illegality — specifically, or you cannot rely on it.
  10. A party may plead any matter arising before or after the issue of the writ (subject to r.7(1), r.10, r.15(2)) — the flexibility valve. You may plead facts that happened before or even after the writ was issued. It is a flexibility valve, so long as it does not break the facts-not-evidence, no-departure and reliefs rules. C.I. 47, Order 11 r 9 New facts that arose later may be pleaded — never against the other three.
  11. Pivot #3 — rule against departure. A party shall not in any pleading make any allegation of fact or raise any new ground or claim, inconsistent with a previous pleading by that party. The only honest route to a different case is amendment under Order 16 (Chapter 11); the proviso (r.10(2)) permits alternative pleas by amendment — not surreptitiously in a later pleading. Boundary: amendment is supervised; departure is not. Hammond v Odoi closed exactly the "Reply that contradicts the SoC" trap. You cannot switch to a story that contradicts what you already pleaded. The only honest way to change your case is to formally amend it. C.I. 47, Order 11 r 10; Hammond v Odoi & Anor [1982-83] 2 GLR 1215; Adehyeman Industrial Complex v Ofosu Mensah [2010-2012] 2 GLR 37; Namaah v Amponsah [2009] SCGLR 361 Never depart from what you have already pleaded — amend or stay silent.
  12. Points of law may be raised in pleadings — jurisdiction, capacity to sue, limitation are the canonical ones; raising a point of law is permitted, pleading bare legal conclusions is not. Customary law must be stated with sufficient particulars to show its nature, effect, geographical area, and ethnic group (a question of law under Act 459 s.55). You may raise legal arguments in a pleading. And if you rely on customary law you must give enough detail, namely its nature, effect, the area, and the ethnic group it comes from. C.I. 47, Order 11 r 11; Act 459, s.55; Darko v Imadi [1991] 2 GLR 206; Abaka v Ansah [1965] GLR 688 Raise points of law; never plead bare legal conclusions.
  13. Pleadings must contain the necessary particulars of any claim, defence or matter pleaded — especially fraud · misrepresentation · breach of trust · wilful default · undue influence · condition of mind (except knowledge). Long particulars (>3 pages) may be in a separate document. Procedure: letter first (r.12(6)); the court may refuse to make the order if no letter was sent (r.12(7)). Particulars are not evidence (Sampa v Sacker); particulars cannot cure a bad SoC (Bruce v Odhams Press). Give the specifics, namely names, dates, amounts and exact words, especially for fraud or misrepresentation. To demand them from the other side you write a letter first, then apply to court if they refuse. C.I. 47, Order 11 r 12; Bank of West Africa Ltd v Holdbrook [1966] GLR 164; Quansah v Ofosu [1991] 1 GLR 151; Sampa v Sacker [1964] GLR 510; Bruce v Odhams Press Ltd [1936] 1 KB 697, CA (Scott LJ); Kweku Y. Painstil v ECG (HC, HR/0035/2018) Particulars: names, dates, sums, the words used — and a letter before the motion.
  14. Pivot #2 — silence is admission. Every allegation of fact in a pleading is deemed admitted by the opposite party unless specifically traversed in pleading or joined issue under r.14; a general statement of non-admission is NOT a sufficient traverse of allegations in a SoC or counterclaim; damages are deemed denied unless specifically admitted (r.13(4)). The general traverse at the foot fills gaps (Akyer v GIDC) but is not enough for essentials (Ansah v Busanga; Brutuw v Aferiba). "Not in a position to admit or deny" is bad pleading = admission (Evelyn Asiedu). Anything the other side alleges is treated as admitted unless you specifically deny it. A vague 'we do not admit' is not enough for important facts, so deny each one squarely. C.I. 47, Order 11 r 13; Akyer v Ghana Industrial Development Corporation [1963] 2 GLR 291; Ansah v Busanga [1976] 2 GLR 488; Brutuw v Aferiba [1982-83] GLR 464; Evelyn Asiedu v Yaw Asamoah (SC, J4/64/2016); Fori v Ayirebi [1966] GLR 627 Silence is admission; traverse specifically, or be deemed to admit.
  15. Where there is no Reply, there is a joinder of issue on the Defence (and on the last pleading served at the close of pleadings); operates as a denial of every material allegation of fact in the pleading; no joinder of issue on a SoC or Counterclaim (r.14(3)). If no Reply is filed, the law automatically puts the parties at issue on the Defence, treating every material allegation as denied, so the case is ready for trial. C.I. 47, Order 11 r 14; In Re Ashalley Botwe Lands; Adjetey Agbosu v Kotey [2003-2004] 1 SCGLR 420 No Reply needed? The rule joins issue for you — silence denies.
  16. The Statement of Claim shall state specifically the relief or remedy claimed (costs need not be specifically claimed). A SoC shall not contain any claim in respect of a cause of action UNLESS that cause is mentioned in the writ or arises from the same facts. A relief endorsed on the writ but NOT repeated in the SoC is deemed abandoned (Unilever v Kama Health Services). BUT — the plaintiff may alter, modify or extend a writ-claim within the SoC without amending the writ (the SoC supersedes the writ on the cause of action). Baseline: the SoC must disclose an accrued cause of action and liability in every named defendant (Morkor v Kuma). List exactly what you are asking for in the Statement of Claim. A relief you put on the writ but forget to repeat is treated as given up, so carry every claim through into the Statement of Claim. C.I. 47, Order 11 r 15; Unilever Ghana Ltd v Kama Health Services Ltd [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 861; Morkor v Kuma [1998-99] SCGLR 620 Reliefs not repeated in the SoC are deemed abandoned — walk the writ-reliefs into the panel.
  17. Defence of tender requires actual payment into court under Order 18; the plea is empty without the money. Saying 'I offered to pay' (a tender defence) only works if you actually pay the money into court. Words without the cash are worthless. C.I. 47, Order 11 r 16; Order 18 Tender without payment into court is no tender at all.
  18. Defence of set-off — a defendant's cross-claim for money may be included in the defence as a shield (same parties, same right, same capacity), whether or not also pleaded as a counterclaim (Chapter 9 / O.12). A defendant who is also owed money by the plaintiff can raise that as a shield inside the defence to reduce or cancel the claim. That is separate from turning it into a full counter-action. C.I. 47, Order 11 r 17 Set-off is a shield; counterclaim is a cross-action — same root, different status.
  19. Pivot #4 — striking out: four grounds, two evidence regimes. (a) no reasonable cause of action / defence — NO evidence admissible (r.18(2); Salifu; "extreme caution"; SoC bad here CANNOT be saved by amendment — Deegbe v Nsiah). (b) scandalous / frivolous / vexatious; (c) prejudice / embarrass / delay; (d) abuse of process — evidence IS admissible, including under the inherent jurisdiction (Okofoh Estates; BWA v Holdbrook). Bring it promptly (Ghenartey v Netas). Pleadings close 7 days after the last pleading served (Reply, or defence-to-counterclaim, or — if neither — the Defence) regardless of outstanding particulars (r.19) → the application-for-directions hand-off (O.32, within one month). A bad pleading can be struck out on four grounds. If the complaint is that it shows no real case at all, the court looks only at the pleading (no evidence) and a hopeless one cannot be patched by amendment. For the other three, namely scandalous, embarrassing or delaying, or an abuse of court, evidence is allowed. C.I. 47, Order 11 rr 18-19; Ghana Muslim Representative Council v Salifu & Others [1975] 2 GLR 246, CA (Azu Crabbe CJ); Okofoh Estates Ltd v Modern Signs Ltd [1996-1997] SCGLR 224; Deegbe v Nsiah [1984-86] 1 GLR 545; Bank of West Africa Ltd v Holdbrook [1966] GLR 164; Reichel v Magrath (1889) LR 14 AC 665; Ghenartey & Glie v Netas Properties [2015-2016] 1 SCGLR 605 Four grounds for the brake; under (a) NO evidence; under (b)/(c)/(d) + inherent jurisdiction, YES.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • "I will plead my evidence into the SoC.". the plaintiff's SoC annexes the loan agreement and the MoMo statement to the writ. → Godka v PS International
  • "The defendant cannot admit or deny.". the Defence opens with paragraph 3 reading "the defendant is not in a position to admit or deny paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the Statement of Claim." Tho… → Evelyn Asiedu v Yaw Asamoah
  • The Reply that departs.. the SoC pleads breach of a loan agreement and claims the unpaid sum. → Hammond v Odoi
  • Strike-out — wrong evidence regime.. the defendant files a strike-out motion under r.18(1)(a) — "no reasonable cause of action" — and supports it with an affidavit deposing to the surrou… → Salifu
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
9 Counterclaim & Set-off · Default of Defence The governing order ORDERS 12–13 C.I. 47 · O.12 · O.13
Leading case Kamara v Traore[1968] GLR 1009 — A counterclaim is a cross-action — a separate action on its own, filed in the same court as the plaintiff's claim, inde…
High-yield · examined 8× 13 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of the cross-action that lives inside the plaintiff's case. Order 12 governs the counterclaim (a cross-action — Kamara v Traore; the pending-action boundary — Progressive Imports v Mueller; survives discontinuance — r.4(1)). Order 13 governs default of defence — a mirror of Chapter 7's Order 10, with the role-swap rule at r.7 and the same Botchway test on set-aside. Three exam pivots: set-off vs counterclaim (defence vs cross-action); pending-action requirement; default judgment cannot exceed the sum claimed (Asamoah v Marful). Thirteen rules in one ladder, each with a one-line recall mnemonic. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. Pivot #1 — a counterclaim is a CROSS-ACTION — a separate action on its own, filed in the same court as the plaintiff's claim, whenever and however arising (need not relate to the plaintiff's claim at all). Not a defence dressed up; an independent claim travelling inside the plaintiff's suit. A counterclaim is the defendant's own separate lawsuit fired back at the plaintiff, run inside the same case. It can be about anything, and need not relate to what the plaintiff is suing for. Kamara v Traore [1968] GLR 1009 · Fosuhene v Atta Wusu [2011] 1 SCGLR 273 · Hydrafoam Estates Ltd v Owusu [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 1117 · C.I. 47, Order 12 r 1 A cross-action, not a defence — lives independently inside the plaintiff's case.
  2. The defendant adds the counterclaim to the Defence — one combined document, no separate writ. (Roles within the counterclaim are reversed: defendant becomes "plaintiff"; plaintiff becomes "defendant.") The defendant puts the counterclaim inside the Defence, as one combined document, with no separate writ. In the counterclaim the roles flip, so the defendant is effectively the one suing. C.I. 47, Order 12 r 1(2) Defence + Counterclaim — one document, one suit, two cases.
  3. Pivot #2 — the counterclaim must be BORN in a PENDING action. Once final judgment closes the plaintiff's case, the door for a counterclaim shuts forever — even though, once filed, the counterclaim SURVIVES the plaintiff's discontinuance / stay / dismissal / judgment for plaintiff (r.4(1)). Two halves of one doctrine: born inside; survives outside. A counterclaim can only be born while the case is still alive. Once final judgment ends the plaintiff's claim the chance is gone, although a counterclaim already filed lives on even if the plaintiff drops out. Progressive Imports & Exports Shipping Ltd v Mueller [1991] 1 GLR 94 · C.I. 47, Order 12 r 4(1) Born inside a pending action — or never; once born, survives the plaintiff's exit.
  4. The Defence to Counterclaim is due within 14 days of service of the counterclaim; where the plaintiff also files a Reply, the two go in the same document (Konki's drafting rule). The plaintiff answers a counterclaim with a Defence to Counterclaim within 14 days. If the plaintiff is also filing a Reply, both go in the same document. C.I. 47, Order 12 r 2 Fourteen days for the Defence to Counterclaim — combined with the Reply in one pleading.
  5. All of Order 11 (Chapter 8's pleadings engine) applies to a counterclaim and to a defence to counterclaim — the counterclaim is read as if it were a Statement of Claim; Orders 13, 14 and 46 apply to a defence to counterclaim as they apply to a Defence. All the ordinary pleading rules (Order 11, from Chapter 8) apply to a counterclaim. It is read as though it were a Statement of Claim. C.I. 47, Order 12 r 3 Order 11 fires identically on the counterclaim — read it as a SoC.
  6. Where both succeed at trial, the court gives judgment for the BALANCE in favour of one side (a single net figure; without prejudice to costs discretion). A counterclaim survives even if the plaintiff withdraws, is stayed, is dismissed, or wins. If both sides succeed, the court simply gives judgment for the balance to whichever side is ahead. C.I. 47, Order 12 r 4(2) Both succeed? — judgment for the balance to one side.
  7. A counterclaim may add a stranger as a new party (jointly liable on the subject matter). Service / appearance / default-of-appearance machinery fires on the stranger as if the counterclaim were a writ and SoC. A counterclaim can pull in a brand-new person who was not yet in the case. The service and appearance machinery then fires on that stranger as if the counterclaim were a writ. C.I. 47, Order 12 r 5 Drag in a stranger — the writ and appearance machinery fires on him too.
  8. Joinder of causes inside one counterclaim is permitted (same capacity / executor + personal / leave). The court has a safety valve — separate trials or strike-out where joinder embarrasses or delays. You can bundle several claims into one counterclaim. The court keeps a safety valve, so it can order separate trials or strike out a claim if bundling them causes confusion or delay. C.I. 47, Order 12 rr 6-7 Multiple causes allowed — but the court can split or strike if joinder embarrasses.
  9. Pivot · SET-OFF vs COUNTERCLAIM — same money, opposite procedural status. Set-off (O.11 r.17, from Chapter 8) is a defence / SHIELD: reduces or extinguishes the plaintiff's claim; same parties / same right / same capacity. Counterclaim (O.12, this chapter) is a cross-action / SWORD: own life, survives discontinuance. The defendant may plead BOTH on the same money (O.11 r.17 last clause: "whether or not it is also added as a counterclaim"). Set-off and counterclaim share the same money but play different roles. Set-off is a shield used as a defence, while a counterclaim is a sword that starts its own attack. The defendant may use both on the same debt. C.I. 47, Order 11 r 17 + Order 12 r 1; Marful-Sau Set-off is the shield; counterclaim is the sword — same money may be both.
  10. Default of defence: shape of the judgment = shape of the claim. Liquidated → final (r.1, Fofie v Pomaa carries from Chapter 7); unliquidated → interlocutory + assessment (r.2); detinue / possession / mixed / catch-all all match Chapter 7's Order 10 rule-by-rule. Joint-defendant brake on possession (r.4(2)); mortgage carve-out (r.4(3) → Order 59). If the plaintiff fails to defend the counterclaim, the judgment takes the shape of the claim, exactly as in Chapter 7. A fixed sum gives a final judgment, while damages to be assessed give a provisional one. C.I. 47, Order 13 rr 1-6 · Fofie v Pomaa [1972] 2 GLR 6 (carried Chapter 7) · Conca Engineering v Moses [1984-86] 2 GLR 319, CA (carried Chapter 7) Same claim-type machinery as Chapter 7 — default of defence mirrors default of appearance.
  11. Pivot #3 — the ROLE-SWAP rule. When the plaintiff defaults on a Defence to Counterclaim, the whole of Order 13 applies with the roles reversed — counterclaim reads as SoC, defence to counterclaim reads as Defence, original plaintiff becomes the "defendant," counterclaiming defendant becomes the "plaintiff." No new procedural learning; mirror the chamber. When the plaintiff defaults on the Defence to Counterclaim, the whole default machinery applies with the roles reversed. The counterclaim reads as the claim and the labels swap over. C.I. 47, Order 13 r 7 Plaintiff defaults on the Defence to Counterclaim? Swap the labels — whole of O.13 fires.
  12. Pivot #4 — default judgment cannot EXCEED the sum claimed. The writ caps the judgment. An over-claim → irregular → set aside as of right under r.8. Bad-faith default judgments also set aside. A default judgment on the counterclaim cannot be bigger than the sum actually claimed. The claim sets the ceiling, so an over-claim makes the judgment irregular and it is set aside as of right. Bad-faith default judgments are also set aside. Asamoah v Marful [2011] 2 SCGLR 832 · Bonsu v Doe [1984-86] GLR 778 (carried Chapter 7) The writ caps the judgment — over-claim is irregular and set aside as of right.
  13. Set-aside under O.13 r.8 = the same Botchway test as O.10 r.8 (Chapter 7). Step 1: regular or irregular? Irregular → set aside as of right, without terms, within reasonable time, no fresh step. Step 2: if regular, two limbs — (i) reasonable explanation for the default + (ii) reasonable defence on the merits, by affidavit, such that it would be unjust not to try. No fixed time — only reasonable time (Haruna). Discretion "unfettered but exercised judicially" (Lamptey) — flag carried from Chapter 7: NOT the defendant's two-limb test (that is Botchway's); Lamptey is the stranger-to-a-judgment rule. Setting aside a default judgment on the counterclaim uses the same test as in Chapter 7. First ask whether it was regular or irregular. If regular, the defaulting party must show both a good reason for the default and a real defence on the merits, brought within a reasonable time. C.I. 47, Order 13 r 8 · Botchway v Daniels [1991] 2 GLR 262 (HC, Cape Coast, Kpegah J) · Haruna v Arts Council [1992] 2 GLR 1 · Lamptey v Hammond [1987-88] 1 GLR 327 · Agyeman v Ghana Railway (1969) CC 60, CA · Charles Osei Mensah v GBC (Suit No. OCC. 39/2018) Botchway carries — regular/irregular first; if regular, both limbs together.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • Counterclaim filed after summary judgment.. the plaintiff obtains summary judgment under O.14 against the defendant. → Progressive Imports v Mueller
  • Set-off vs Counterclaim — which is it?. the defendant pleads that the plaintiff owes him GH₵ 50,000 on a separate transaction.
  • The role-swap default — plaintiff misses the 14 days.. the counterclaim has been filed. → Asamoah v Marful
  • Lamptey v Hammond mis-anchored as the set-aside test.. in the defendant's set-aside affidavit (under O.13 r.8 or O.10 r.8), counsel cites Lamptey v Hammond as authority for "the two-limb test of reasonabl… → Lamptey v Hammond
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
9A Summary Judgment The governing order ORDER 14 C.I. 47 · O.14
Leading case Kamara v Traore[1968] GLR 1009 — A counterclaim is a cross-action — a separate action on its own, filed in the same court as the plaintiff's claim, inde…
High-yield · examined 7× 12 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of the plaintiff's fast lane. Order 14 — single Order, twelve rules. Central distinction: SJ is a judgment on the merits, not a default judgment (Asamoah v Marful, re-anchored from Chapter 9). Functional threshold: no fairly arguable defence (Sam Jonah v Lord Duodu-Kumi). Appearance precondition (Kuma v Bart-Plange + Ballastnedam Ghana BV v Horizon Marine). The r.12 exclusion list including the fraud trap. And the r.9 set-aside's hard 14-day deadline — Botchway / Haruna / Lamptey from Chapter 7 / Chapter 9 do NOT apply. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. Pivot #1 — SJ is a judgment ON THE MERITS, not a default judgment. SJ = merits + no defence. Default = no merits + procedural failure. Same outward appearance; different doctrinal foundation; different setting-aside machinery and time-bars. Summary judgment is a real win on the merits, not a win by default. It is given when the defendant has no genuine defence, whereas a default judgment is won only because the defendant missed a procedural step. Asamoah v Marful [2011] 2 SCGLR 832 (Konki — re-anchored from Chapter 9) SJ wins on the merits; default wins on the procedural failure — never confuse them.
  2. The functional threshold: no fairly arguable defence. The defendant need not plead a complete defence; he must disclose one with real prospect of success. Mere denial is not enough. The test is whether the defendant has any fairly arguable defence. He need not prove the whole case, but he must show a defence with a real chance of success. A bare denial is not enough. Sam Jonah v Lord Duodu-Kumi [2003-2004] SCGLR 50 (Konki) "Fairly arguable" — below it, SJ; above it, leave to defend.
  3. The plaintiff-side complement: the plaintiff must prove his claim clearly by affidavit evidence. The supporting affidavit cannot be a thin sketch. The plaintiff must also do their part and prove the claim clearly in the supporting affidavit. A thin, sketchy affidavit will not do. Yartel Boat Building Co. v Annan [1991] 2 GLR 11 · Senanu v Salifu [2009] SCGLR 587 (Marful-Sau) Plaintiff proves the claim clearly; defendant must disclose a fairly arguable defence.
  4. Pivot #2 — appearance precondition. The defendant must have filed appearance before the plaintiff may apply for SJ. If not appeared → default-of-appearance under Order 10 (Chapter 7), not Order 14. Manual names paired authorities across the rule change. The defendant must already have entered appearance before the plaintiff can ask for summary judgment. If no appearance was entered, the route is default of appearance (Chapter 7), not this one. C.I. 47, Order 14 r 1 · Kuma v Bart-Plange [1989-1990] 1 GLR 119 (under predecessor rules) · Ballastnedam Ghana BV v Horizon Marine Commission Construction Ltd [2010] SCGLR 435 (under C.I. 47) Appearance first — without it, the lane is Order 10, not Order 14.
  5. Method: motion on notice + supporting affidavit (verifies facts AND deposes to NO DEFENCE); documents exhibited; service at least 4 clear days before the hearing (excluding service day + hearing day). You apply by motion on notice with a supporting affidavit that proves the facts and states the belief that there is no defence. The documents are exhibited, and it is served at least 4 clear days before the hearing. C.I. 47, Order 14 r 2 Motion paper, supporting affidavit, four clear days — the mechanics in one breath.
  6. The defendant shows cause by affidavit in opposition (or "otherwise"). The affidavit must disclose the defence with specificity — a mere general denial is not sufficient. Court may, in special circumstances, order examination on oath. The defendant answers by an affidavit in opposition that actually spells out the defence. A general denial is not enough, and in special cases the court can order a person to be questioned on oath. C.I. 47, Order 14 r 3 Show cause by affidavit — disclose the defence; never a bare denial.
  7. BOTH affidavits (supporting and opposing) may contain statements of information and belief with sources and grounds disclosed — an exception to the personal-knowledge rule. Unusually, both affidavits may include things the deponent was told and believes, so long as the source and grounds are given. This is an exception to the usual personal-knowledge rule. C.I. 47, Order 14 r 4 Information-and-belief allowed both sides — with sources disclosed.
  8. Three options on hearing: (a) judgment for the plaintiff (default unless defendant satisfies court there is an issue ought to be tried); (b) leave to defend (unconditional or on terms — e.g. security for costs); (c) dismissal with costs (case not within Order 14 OR plaintiff was mala fide). Sub-rule 2: court may stay execution until trial of any counterclaim. At the hearing the court has three choices. It can give judgment for the plaintiff, let the defendant defend (freely or on conditions like security for costs), or dismiss the application with costs. It can also hold off execution until a counterclaim is tried. C.I. 47, Order 14 r 5 Three options: judgment, leave to defend (free or on terms), or dismissal with costs.
  9. Where leave to defend is given or execution stayed, the court may give directions and may order the action set down for trial forthwith. The hand-off to the application for directions. If the defendant is allowed to defend, the court can give directions and even send the case straight to trial, skipping the usual directions step. C.I. 47, Order 14 r 6 Leave to defend? The court can direct trial straightaway.
  10. Two niche carve-outs preserving rights available after trial: r.7 — for SJ on delivery up of a SPECIFIC CHATTEL, the court may order delivery without the defendant's option to pay assessed value. r.8 — for SJ on possession of land based on forfeiture for non-payment of rent, tenant retains the same right to apply for relief against forfeiture as after trial. Two special situations protect rights that would survive a trial. For a specific item ordered to be handed over, the defendant gets no option to pay its value instead, and a tenant facing forfeiture keeps the right to ask for relief. C.I. 47, Order 14 rr 7-8 Two carve-outs: specific chattels (no pay-value option) and tenancy forfeiture (equitable relief preserved).
  11. Pivot #3 — r.9 set-aside has its own time-bar. SJ may be set aside ONLY where the defendant did NOT appear at the hearing, on application brought within 14 DAYS of service of the judgment. NOT the Botchway test — that is O.10 r.8 / O.13 r.8 (Chapter 7 / Chapter 9). Different machinery, different time-bar, different test. Marful-Sau: "a party who appears at the hearing and participates … cannot set aside any judgment entered against him. The remedy … is to appeal." Setting aside a summary judgment has its own rule. It is allowed only where the defendant did not turn up at the hearing, and the application must come within 14 days of being served with the judgment. The usual default-judgment test does not apply here. C.I. 47, Order 14 r 9 · cf. Botchway v Daniels [1991] 2 GLR 262 (DOES NOT apply); Haruna v Arts Council [1992] 2 GLR 1 (DOES NOT apply); Lamptey v Hammond [1987-88] 1 GLR 327 (flag carried from Chapter 7) r.9: 14 days, did-not-appear-at-hearing — Botchway does NOT apply.
  12. Pivot #4 — r.10 SJ on counterclaim · r.11 divisibility · r.12 EXCLUSIONS. r.10 — defendant may apply for SJ on a counterclaim; rules 2-9 fire with labels reversed (the doctrinal twin of Chapter 9's O.13 r.7). r.11 — SJ on PART of a claim is allowed; remainder proceeds. r.12 — SJ shall NOT be given on: (a) probate / matrimonial / maritime; (b) defamation / malicious prosecution / seduction / breach of promise of marriage; (c) FRAUD. Three groups, eight excluded actions, one mnemonic. The fraud exclusion is the examiner's favourite trap on this chapter — fraud must be proved beyond reasonable doubt at trial (Nti v Anima / Evidence Act s.13(1)). A defendant with a counterclaim can also seek summary judgment on it, and the court can give judgment on part of a case while the rest goes to trial. But summary judgment is barred in some matters, namely probate, matrimonial and maritime cases, defamation and similar personal claims, and any case of fraud. C.I. 47, Order 14 rr 10-12 · cf. Nti v Anima [1984-86] 2 GLR 134 (Chapter 8 — doctrinal reason behind r.12(c)) PROBATE/MATRIMONIAL/MARITIME · DEFAMATION/MALICIOUS-PROSECUTION/SEDUCTION/BREACH-OF-PROMISE · FRAUD.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • Defendant hasn't appeared — plaintiff moves for SJ.. the plaintiff serves writ + SoC; → Kuma v Bart-Plange
  • SoC pleads fraud — plaintiff moves for SJ.. the SoC pleads breach of contract AND specifically alleges the breach was procured by the defendant's fraudulent misrepresentations during negotiatio… → Nti v Anima
  • Defendant's affidavit in opposition is a bare denial.. the plaintiff applies for SJ on a clear contractual claim. → the defendant denies indebtedness and prays this Honourable Court to refuse the application.
  • Defendant cites Botchway v Daniels on an O.14 r.9 set-aside.. the defendant did not appear at the hearing of a SJ application; → Botchway v Daniels
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
10 Third Party Proceedings The governing order ORDER 15 C.I. 47 · O.15
Leading case Appenteng v Bank of West Africa[1972] 1 GLR 153-179 — Where a defendant requires contribution / indemnity / substantially-the-same relief from a NON-PARTY, his proper proced…
Lower-frequency 11 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of dragging in the stranger who shares the liability. Order 15 — single Order, eleven rules. Lead anchor: Appenteng v Bank of West Africa — the wrong-door rule (third party notice, not joinder). Konki adds Adams v Morgan (the agent's default right to indemnity) and the Standard Securities v Husband + Chartsworth v Amoco pair on the substantially-the-same-relief test. Four exam pivots: wrong-door rule; contribution vs indemnity; the directions stage as gatekeeper; the execution-queue rule at r.7(2). And the role-swap on counterclaim (r.11) appears for the THIRD consecutive time in the train (after Chapter 9 O.13 r.7 and Chapter 9A O.14 r.10) — convention locked. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. Pivot #1 — the wrong-door rule. A defendant who wants contribution / indemnity / substantially-the-same relief from a NON-PARTY must use a third party notice (O.15) — NOT an application to join (O.4 / Chapter 5). Joinder makes a co-litigant in the MAIN action (plaintiff can recover directly); third party proceedings create a SUB-ACTION between defendant and third party only (plaintiff stays structurally outside). To claim contribution or indemnity from someone outside the case, the defendant uses a third party notice, not an application to join. Joinder is the wrong door. Appenteng v Bank of West Africa [1972] 1 GLR 153-179 (Manual ch.10 lead anchor) Wrong door = wrong outcome — third party notice, never joinder.
  2. The three circumstances for third party proceedings (r.1(1)(a)-(c), (c) reaching "between any or either of them"): (a) contribution or indemnity; (b) substantially-the-same relief; (c) substantially-the-same question. Application is EX PARTE supported by an affidavit covering FIVE required points: (a) nature of plaintiff's claim against defendant; (b) stage of proceedings; (c) nature of defendant's claim against third party; (d) facts; (e) third party's name and address. Missing any one is a ground for refusal of leave or for set-aside. A defendant can bring in a third party in three situations, and he asks for it quietly (ex parte) with a sworn statement covering five set points. C.I. 47, Order 15 r.1(1)-(2) Three circumstances; ex parte; five-point affidavit — the gate.
  3. Once leave is granted, the Third Party Notice must be issued within the time the order specifies — or 14 days by default. After the court gives leave, the notice must go out within the time set, or within 14 days if no time is stated. C.I. 47, Order 15 r.1(3) Leave granted? — notice within 14 days, default.
  4. The Third Party Notice is like a writ — contains the plaintiff's claim against the defendant + the defendant's claim against the third party (nature + grounds) + the question or issue to be determined. Form 6 of the Schedule. Sealed by the Registrar — registry will not seal unless a signed copy is left for the file (so the defendant lodges TWO copies). The notice works like a writ, set out on Form 6 and stamped by the Registrar, with two copies lodged. C.I. 47, Order 15 r.2 · Form 6 of the Schedule Form 6, like a writ — two copies, sealed by Registrar.
  5. Service of the notice carries with it the writ + ALL pleadings filed in the action (r.3(1)). From the moment of service, the third party is a party to the action with the same right of defence as if sued by writ (r.3(2)). 8-day appearance clock — the same Chapter 7's O.9 r.5 machinery, now firing on the third party (r.3(3)). All service-and-appearance rules apply (r.3(6)). Serving the notice hands over the writ and all the pleadings, and from then the third party is a full party who must appear within eight days. C.I. 47, Order 15 r.3 · cf. C.I. 47, Order 9 r.5 (Chapter 7) Notice + writ + ALL pleadings; eight days to appear — the Chapter 7 clock fires on the third party.
  6. Pivot #3 — the directions stage is the gatekeeper. Defendant MUST apply for directions within 8 days of the third party's appearance — notice to ALL parties. If defendant fails, third party may apply OR move to set aside the third party notice. Court's five options: (a) judgment against third party; (b) trial direction; (c) dismiss + terminate; (d) leave to defend (alone or jointly); (e) general residual powers. Court may vary or rescind (r.4(5)). Within eight days of the third party appearing, the defendant must ask the court for directions, and the court then has five ways it can steer the case. C.I. 47, Order 15 r.4 Directions stage = the gatekeeper — five options, court's discretion shapes the case.
  7. Default of third party → deemed to admit any claim stated in the notice + bound by any judgment in the main action (including by consent) so far as relevant. Defendant may enter judgment for contribution / indemnity — but only AFTER satisfying main judgment (or with leave BEFORE). For other relief, leave always required. Court may set aside / vary "on such terms as it thinks fit" — broader discretion than Chapter 7 / Chapter 9's Botchway two-step test (no fixed test specified). A third party who does nothing is taken to admit the claim and is bound by the main result, and the defendant can claim from him after paying the main judgment. C.I. 47, Order 15 r.5 · cf. Botchway v Daniels [1991] 2 GLR 262 (Chapter 7 / Chapter 9 — echo only) Default = deemed admission + bound by main judgment; judgment for contribution/indemnity AFTER satisfaction (or with leave before).
  8. Court may set aside proceedings on a third party notice at any stage of an action (r.6) — broad reserve power, complementing the directions stage's "dismiss + terminate" option at r.4(3)(c). The court keeps a reserve power to cancel third party proceedings at any point in the case. C.I. 47, Order 15 r.6 The court's reserve power — set-aside at any stage.
  9. Pivot #4 — the EXECUTION-QUEUE RULE. Where judgment is given against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff AND for the defendant against the third party, execution shall NOT issue against the third party without leave of the Court UNTIL the judgment against the defendant has been satisfied. Third party is structurally ONE STEP BEHIND in the execution queue. Doctrinal reason: third party's liability is DERIVATIVE on the defendant's actual payment. Safety-valve leave route where the stay would itself work injustice (e.g. plaintiff insolvent; defendant shielded by third party's solvency). The third party stands one step behind in the queue. He is not made to pay until the defendant has first paid the plaintiff, unless the court allows otherwise. C.I. 47, Order 15 r.7 Third party is one step behind — defendant pays first; only then execute against the third party.
  10. Pivot #2 — contribution vs indemnity (the substantive doctrine that powers r.1(1)(a)). Where the defendant's target is ALREADY A PARTY (e.g. co-defendant), procedure is lighter — NO ex parte motion, NO leave required (r.8). Just serve a notice. Co-defendant doesn't need fresh appearance (r.8(4)). Counterclaim against plaintiff carved out → Order 12 (Chapter 9). Substantively: contribution = part (joint liability — joint wrongdoer / debtor / surety / guarantor); indemnity = whole (agency / contract / equity — agent's default right at common law per Adams v Morgan; the right is implied and survives even where the principal could not itself have been directly assessed on the underlying liability). The substantially-the-same-relief test (r.1(1)(b)) is broader than identity — substantial connection suffices. If the target is already a co-defendant, it is simpler, just serve a notice with no leave. Contribution means sharing part of the loss, indemnity means covering the whole. C.I. 47, Order 15 r.8 · Adams v Morgan (likely [1924] 1 KB 751 — Konki) · Standard Securities Ltd v Husband [1967] 2 AER 622 (Konki) · Chartsworth v Amoco (UK) Ltd [1968] CH 665 (Konki) Co-defendant? No leave, just serve. Substantively: contribution = part; indemnity = whole.
  11. Three procedural cousins. r.9 — the chain rule: a third party served under r.1 may himself issue a notice on yet another person (Defendant A → Third Party B → Subsequent Party C). The cascade is permitted. r.10 — offer of contribution is PRIVILEGED: not before the trial judge until liability + quantum decided (Calderbank-equivalent for tortfeasors and contributors). Mark any such offer "WITHOUT PREJUDICE — O.15 r.10". r.11 — the role-swap on counterclaim: Order 15 applies to a counterclaim as if it were a writ + SoC, with counterclaiming defendant as plaintiff (with the carve-out that such a plaintiff need not file appearance). THIRD INSTANCE of the locked role-swap convention in the train after Chapter 9 (O.13 r.7) and Chapter 9A (O.14 r.10). Convention locked. A third party may himself pull in another person, an offer to contribute stays privileged until liability is decided, and the same rules apply when the claim comes by counterclaim. C.I. 47, Order 15 rr.9-11 · cf. Chapter 9 O.13 r.7 · Chapter 9A O.14 r.10 (role-swap convention) Chain (r.9); offer of contribution is PRIVILEGED (r.10); role-swap on counterclaim — the third instance (r.11).

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • Junior lawyer applies to join instead of issuing a third party notice.. the defendant has a contribution claim against a non-party. → Appenteng v Bank of West Africa
  • Affidavit omits one of the five required points.. the defendant's ex parte motion is supported by an affidavit that covers four of the five required points under r.1(2) but omits the third party's ad…
  • Defendant tries to execute against the third party before satisfying the plaintiff's judgment.. judgment is given for the plaintiff against the defendant for GH₵ 100,000, and for the defendant against the third party for contribution of 60% (GH₵…
  • Defendant fails to apply for directions; third party moves to set aside.. the third party files appearance within 8 days of service.
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
11 Amendment The governing order ORDER 16 C.I. 47 · O.16
Leading case Cropper v Smith[1884] 26 ChD 700 at 710, CA — Amendment must be allowed however late if it can be made without causing injustice to the other side.
High-yield · examined 6× 11 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of fixing the pleadings to bring out the real question in controversy. Order 16 — single Order, eleven rules. Manual-led restructure: Cropper v Smith paired with Adjeley v Sowa (foundational dictum); Mahama Hausa v Baako Hausa paired with Yeboah v Bofour (pleadings-amendment test); Kai v Amarkye paired with Hasnem v ECG (relates-back doctrine); Ayiwah v Badu paired with Eastern Alloys (failure-to-amend rule + flexibility). Four exam pivots: with leave vs without leave; the real-question-in-controversy power at r.7; the limitation-period override machinery at r.5(2)-(5); the relates-back doctrine. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. Pivot #1 — with leave vs without leave. Plaintiff may amend the writ ONCE before close of pleadings WITHOUT leave (r.1). Any party may amend any pleading ONCE before close of pleadings WITHOUT leave (r.3). Defendant CANNOT amend appearance without leave (r.2). After close of pleadings, leave required under r.5(1). Both r.1 / r.3 are SUBJECT TO 14-day strike-out under r.4 if leave would have been refused. You get one free change before pleadings close. The plaintiff may amend the writ once, and any party may amend a pleading once, without asking the court. After pleadings close you always need the court's leave. C.I. 47, Order 16 rr.1, 2, 3, 5(1) · Manual ch.11 §§a-c One free amendment before pleadings close; leave forever after — and the defendant's appearance, never without leave.
  2. The defendant's appearance is the only document with NO without-leave window at all. Every amendment requires court oversight. Reads alongside Order 17 r.1 (withdrawal of appearance also requires leave). The defendant's appearance is the one document you can never change on your own. Every amendment to it needs the court's leave, and the same goes for withdrawing it. C.I. 47, Order 16 r.2 Appearance is the tether — never amended without leave.
  3. The without-leave cascade for responsive pleadings (r.3(2)-(5)). Amended SoC → defendant may amend defence without leave (14-day extension on top of standard service period). Amended defence → plaintiff may amend reply without leave (14 days). Cascade extends to counterclaim + defence to counterclaim. Sub-rule (6): silence = reliance on the unamended pleading in answer. A free amendment sets off a chain. If the plaintiff amends the claim, the defendant gets 14 days to amend the defence without leave, and so on down the line. Saying nothing means you simply rely on your old pleading. C.I. 47, Order 16 r.3(2)-(6) · cf. Order 11 rule 14(2) Amend the SoC; defence gets a free response in 14 days. Silence = reliance on the old pleading.
  4. The 14-day strike-out window. r.3 "without leave" is NOT unsupervised: the other side has 14 days from service to apply to the court to strike out the amendment. Court WILL strike it out if leave would have been refused had it been sought. A free amendment is not beyond check. The other side has 14 days to ask the court to strike it out, and the court will do so if it would never have allowed the change in the first place. C.I. 47, Order 16 r.4(1)-(2) Without-leave amendments are reviewable — 14 days to apply to strike out.
  5. Pivot #3 — the limitation-period override machinery. Where leave is sought AFTER limitation has expired, court may grant leave in three carve-outs: (3) correct name of party (genuine-mistake test — Mussey v Darko); (4) alter capacity (had at commencement or since acquired — softens Akrong v Bulley); (5) add or substitute a new cause of action arising out of the same or substantially the same facts. Doctrinal foundation: the relates-back doctrine (Pivot #4). Even after the time-limit for suing has passed, the court can still allow three kinds of amendment. They are correcting a party's name (an honest mistake), fixing the capacity sued in, and adding a new claim that grows out of the same facts. C.I. 47, Order 16 r.5(2)-(5) · Mussey v Darko [1977] 1 GLR 147 · Akrong v Bulley [1965] GLR 469 Name · Capacity · Cause-of-Action — three doors through limitation.
  6. Long vacation rule. Without-leave amendments under r.1 or r.3(1) may be made during the long vacation; with-leave amendments may not, except as r.5 permits. During the long vacation you may make only the free, no-leave amendments. Changes that need the court's leave must wait, unless they fall under the special limitation rule. C.I. 47, Order 16 r.6 Long vacation: without-leave only — r.5 routes need court allowance.
  7. Pivot #2 — the REAL QUESTION IN CONTROVERSY power (r.7) ⭐⭐⭐. The most powerful single rule in Order 16. Court may amend ANY document, at ANY stage, of its OWN motion or on application, on ANY terms — for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy. Codifies Cropper v Smith (Bowen LJ); Manual ch.11 §c pairs Cropper with Adjeley v Sowa as the foundational anchor. r.7(2) — does NOT apply to judgments or orders (slip rule at r.10 covers those). The court has a very wide power to amend any document, at any stage, by itself or on request, on any terms, just to get at the real question in dispute. This power does not cover judgments or orders, which have their own correction rule. C.I. 47, Order 16 r.7 · Cropper v Smith [1884] 26 ChD 700 at 710 CA · Adjeley v Sowa & Another [1966] GLR 754 (Manual ch.11 §c — paired) Real question = ANY document, ANY stage, OWN motion, ANY terms — the omnibus power.
  8. Pleadings-amendment test (Manual ch.11 §c). Leave granted where the amendment ought to be made for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy. Ghanaian application: Mahama Hausa v Baako Hausa + Yeboah v Bofour. For ordinary pleadings, the court allows an amendment when it is needed to decide the real questions between the parties. The aim is always to reach the true dispute, not to punish a slip. C.I. 47, Order 16 r.5(1) · Mahama Hausa & Others v Baako Hausa & Another [1972] 2 GLR 469 · Yeboa & Another v Bofour [1971] 2 GLR 199 (both Manual ch.11 §c) Pleadings test — "real questions in controversy"; Mahama Hausa & Yeboah v Bofour.
  9. The 14-day execution window. Where leave is granted, effect the amendment within the order's time, or 14 days by default. If not done, the order ceases to have effect (but court may extend — the preserved safety valve). Ayiwah v Badu [1963] GLR 86 (Manual ch.11 §f) — foundational lapse rule. Eastern Alloys Co Ltd v Chirano Gold Mines (SC Civil Appeal J4/48/2016) — softens this on substantial-justice grounds. Once leave is given, you must actually make the amendment within the time set, or 14 days by default. Miss it and the order lapses, though the court can extend the time. C.I. 47, Order 16 r.8 · Ayiwah & Another v Badu & Others [1963] GLR 86 (Manual ch.11 §f) · Eastern Alloys Co Ltd v Chirano Gold Mines (SC Civil Appeal J4/48/2016) 14 days to effect or the order lapses — Ayiwah default, Eastern Alloys flexibility.
  10. Pivot #4 — the RELATES-BACK doctrine. An amended writ or pleading relates back to the date the original process was filed. Original ceases to have force; amended replaces (Hasnem v ECG, Manual ch.11 §g). One exception: amendment adding a NEW DEFENDANT takes effect from the joinder date (service of the amended writ on the new defendant), not from original filing — because the new defendant cannot be retrospectively bound by proceedings to which he was not a party. An amended writ or pleading is treated as if it always read that way, back to the original filing date. The one exception is adding a new defendant, who is only brought in from the date they are served. C.I. 47, Order 16 r.9 · Kai v Amarkye [1982-83] GLR 817 · Hasnem v ECG [1992] 2 GLR 250 (Manual ch.11 §g) Amended = original — relates back to filing date; new defendant the exception.
  11. The slip rule + the leave-application machinery. r.10 — clerical mistakes / accidental slips / omissions in JUDGMENTS OR ORDERS may be corrected at any time by court on its own motion (on notice) or on application, WITHOUT APPEAL. Distinguishes from r.7 which expressly excludes judgments/orders (r.7(2)). Manual ch.11 §i: Abu Ramadan + Omaboe v Kwame. r.11 — leave application: on NOTICE; specify PRECISELY the nature of the amendment; affidavit MAY be used (in practice always essential). Genuine clerical slips in a judgment or order can be corrected at any time, without going through an appeal. A request for leave to amend is made on notice, states exactly what is wanted, and is backed by an affidavit. C.I. 47, Order 16 rr.10-11 · Abu Ramadan & Nimako (No 3) v EC & AG (No 3) [2015-2016] 1 SCGLR 77 at 80 · Omaboe v Kwame [1978] GLR 122 (both Manual ch.11 §i) Slip rule for judgments & orders (r.10); leave application on notice + precisely + affidavit (r.11).

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • Party tries to amend the appearance without leave.. the defendant realises his notice of appearance to the writ misnamed his solicitor.
  • Without-leave amendment after close of pleadings.. pleadings have closed.
  • Limitation expired; new cause of action sought to be added.. the plaintiff seeks leave to add a new cause of action by amendment. → Kai v Amarkye
  • Party fails to effect the amendment within the r.8 14-day window.. leave to amend is granted. → Ayiwah v Badu
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
12 Withdrawal and Discontinuance The governing order ORDER 17 C.I. 47 · O.17
Leading case Republic v High Court, Accra; Ex Parte Asakum Engineering & Construction Ltd[1993-94] 2 GLR 643 — The courts are not supposed to instigate litigation;
Lower-frequency 8 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of ending the action the plaintiff no longer wants. Order 17 — single Order, four rules; the case-law carries the doctrine. Foundational principle: Ex Parte Asakum Engineering — no court can force a person to litigate. The three routes: without leave (r.2(1)), with leave (r.2(3)), by consent (r.3). Ibe v Pan African Metals — a discontinuance is not res judicata, but leave granted simpliciter presumes no liberty. Sasraku v Ellis & Wood Families (with Afeke v Agble) — the six circumstances denying liberty. Four exam pivots: with leave vs without leave; discontinuance vs res judicata; the six-circumstance liberty test; counterclaim survival + the costs-stay. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. The foundational principle. The courts do not instigate litigation, and no court can force a person to litigate. Discontinuance is the plaintiff's right (he is dominus litis — master of the suit); the court does not refuse the stop, it only attaches the consequences (costs; liberty, or no liberty, to re-sue). No court can force anyone to keep a case going. The plaintiff is master of his own suit and may stop it, and the court only attaches the consequences such as costs. Republic v High Court, Accra; Ex Parte Asakum Engineering & Construction Ltd [1993-94] 2 GLR 643 · Manual ch.12 No court can force you to litigate — the plaintiff is master of the suit; the court sets only the consequences.
  2. Withdrawal of appearance always requires leave — there is no free window for it at all (the mirror of Part 11's rule that a defendant cannot amend the appearance without leave). Taking back an appearance always needs the court's leave. There is no free window for it. C.I. 47, Order 17 r.1 Appearance leaves only by leave.
  3. Pivot #1a — the without-leave window. The plaintiff may discontinue (wholly, or any part) by notice in writing BEFORE the defendant's defence is served, OR after it but BEFORE taking any other proceeding (a "fresh step"); the plaintiff pays the defendant's taxed costs, and the discontinuance is NOT a defence to any subsequent action. Before the defence comes in (or after it but before a fresh step), the plaintiff may stop the case by written notice, paying the other side's costs, and it does not block a later case. C.I. 47, Order 17 r.2(1)-(2) Before the defence (or before a fresh step), free — by notice, on costs; never a defence later.
  4. Pivot #1b — the with-leave override. Once a fresh step is taken, leave of the court is required; the court may order discontinuance before, during or after the hearing or trial, on such terms as may be just. DUAL discretion: (a) whether to allow it at all; (b) the terms — above all, WITH or WITHOUT liberty to re-sue. Once a fresh step is taken, stopping needs the court's leave, and the court decides both whether to allow it and on what terms, above all whether you may sue again. C.I. 47, Order 17 r.2(3) After a fresh step, leave — and the court sets the terms, above all liberty.
  5. Withdrawal by consent. At any time before trial, an action may be withdrawn WITHOUT leave where ALL parties hand the Registrar a written consent. One refusal kills this route — then it is back to r.2(3) leave. Before trial, the case can be dropped without leave if everyone signs a written consent. A single refusal sends you back to needing leave. C.I. 47, Order 17 r.3 Everyone signs, before trial — withdrawal without leave.
  6. Pivot #2 — discontinuance ≠ res judicata, BUT simpliciter presumes no liberty. A discontinuance is not a decision on the merits, so by itself it raises no estoppel and does not bar a fresh action. BUT where leave is granted simpliciter (silent on liberty), the plaintiff is presumed to have NO liberty to re-litigate — so ask for liberty expressly. Stopping a case is not a decision on the merits, so it does not bar a fresh one. But if leave was silent about suing again, you are presumed to have no such right, so ask for it plainly. Ibe v Pan African Metals Ltd [1967] GLR 188 (Konki; Marful-Sau) Discontinuance never estops — unless leave was silent (simpliciter).
  7. Pivot #3 — the six circumstances that DENY liberty. Liberty to re-sue is the norm; it is denied only where one of six is made out: (i) frivolous & vexatious; (ii) abuse of process; (iii) prima facie legal defence like estoppel; (iv) liberty would help escape a statute; (v) lis alibi pendens strongly made; (vi) plaintiff not wholly dominus litis and defendant has an advantage unjust to remove. Permission to sue again is the norm, denied only in six situations such as a frivolous or vexatious claim, an abuse of process, or an attempt to dodge a statute. Sasraku III v Ellis & Wood Families [1989-90] 1 GLR 498-509 · Afeke v Agble [1987-88] 2 GLR 572 Six doors to denial: Frivolous · Abuse · Defence · Statute · Lis-pendens · Non-dominus.
  8. Pivot #4 — counterclaim survival + the costs-stay. A counterclaim filed BEFORE the discontinuance order survives and proceeds on its own (a counterclaim is a cross-action); it cannot be set up AFTER the order. And r.4: a fresh action on the same or substantially the same cause may be STAYED until the costs of the discontinued action are paid. A counterclaim already filed lives on by itself even after the main case is dropped, and a fresh action can be paused until the costs of the dropped one are paid. C.I. 47, Order 17 r.4 · Order 12 r.4(1) (counterclaim survival) Counterclaim already filed survives; costs unpaid, the fresh action stays.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • Plaintiff files a notice of discontinuance after taking a fresh step.. the defendant's defence was served months ago;
  • Discontinuance with a silent leave order; the plaintiff re-sues.. the plaintiff earlier discontinued with the court's leave; → Ibe v Pan African Metals
  • The defendant opposes liberty to re-sue as frivolous / an abuse.. the plaintiff seeks leave to discontinue WITH liberty. → Sasraku
  • Counterclaim after discontinuance + re-suing before paying costs.. the plaintiff discontinues his claim.
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
13 Applications The governing order ORDERS 19 & 18 C.I. 47 · O.19 · O.18
Leading case Republic v High Court, Accra; Ex parte Salloum (Senyo Coker, Interested Party)[2011] 1 SCGLR 574 — Ex parte is the fenced exception to the on-notice default.
Moderate frequency 8 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of how every request to the court is made. Order 19 (Applications) + Order 18 (Payment into and out of court). Every application is made by motion (r.1), on notice by default with at least three clear days (r.2), supported by an affidavit (r.4). Ex parte is the fenced exception (r.3) — only where a rule provides or the court thinks proper; an interim order needs irreparable damage or serious mischief, with good reason + the precise nature of the damage. Ex parte Salloum — full and frank disclosure; an order on suppressed facts is set aside, on notice. Order 18 — payment into court: pay in after appearance in satisfaction (r.1), 14 days to accept (r.3), hidden from the trial judge till liability + amount are decided (r.7). Four exam pivots: by motion, on notice, three clear days; ex parte = good reason + precise damage + full disclosure; no motion without an affidavit; payment into court. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. Pivot #1 — every application by motion; on notice by default. Every application in pending proceedings is made by motion; and unless a rule provides otherwise, no motion is made without previous notice to the parties affected. Name the rule grounding the application (Asamoah v Marfo). Every request to the court during a case is made by a motion, and by default the other side must be told. Always name the rule you are relying on. C.I. 47, Order 19 r.1 · Asamoah v Marfo [2011] 2 SCGLR 832 · Manual ch.13 §a Every application by motion — on notice by default; name your grounding rule.
  2. Three clear days. At least three clear days between service of the notice of motion and the hearing (count neither end). Urgent? Ask leave for short notice, and state that leave on the notice. There must be at least three clear days between serving the motion and the hearing. If it is urgent you ask leave for shorter notice and say so on the paper. C.I. 47, Order 19 r.2 At least three clear days — short notice only by leave, stated on the notice.
  3. Pivot #2 — ex parte is the fenced exception. Ex parte only where a rule provides or the court thinks proper; an interim ex parte order needs delay → irreparable damage or serious mischief; the applicant must show good reason for going ex parte AND the precise nature of the damage; the court may still refuse and order notice. Going to the court without telling the other side is allowed only rarely, where delay would cause serious harm, and you must show a good reason and exactly what damage notice would cause. C.I. 47, Order 19 r.3 Ex parte = good reason + precise damage (irreparable / serious mischief) — court may still order notice.
  4. Pivot #2 (case overlay) — full and frank disclosure. An ex parte applicant must disclose all material facts, including adverse ones; an order obtained on suppressed facts is liable to be set aside, and the proper challenge is on notice (the challenger meeting the same standards). Because the other side is absent, an ex parte applicant must tell the court everything that matters, even points against himself. Hide a material fact and the order can be set aside. Republic v High Court, Accra; Ex Parte Salloum (Senyo Coker, Interested Party) [2011] 1 SCGLR 574 · Manual ch.13 §c Ex parte demands full & frank disclosure — suppress a material fact and the order falls (set aside on notice).
  5. Pivot #3 — no motion without an affidavit. Every application is supported by an affidavit stating the facts relied on (an affidavit is a sworn/affirmed written statement by a deponent — ex parte Atumfuwa); the respondent answers by affidavit in opposition (Assuming v DIC; Bonsu v Eyifah). EXCEPTION: an application grounded entirely on law/procedure — state the grounds in the motion paper. A motion must be backed by an affidavit of the facts, and the other side replies by affidavit. The only exception is a motion resting purely on law. C.I. 47, Order 19 r.4 · ex parte Atumfuwa & Another [1999-2000] 2 GLR 599 · Assuming v DIC (2008) 3 GMJ 35 · Bonsu v Eyifah [2001-2002] 1 GLR 9 No motion without an affidavit of the facts — unless it's pure law.
  6. Pivot #4 — payment into court. A defendant in a debt or damages action may, after appearance, pay a sum into court in satisfaction of the cause(s) of action (notice in Form 7). In a debt or damages case the defendant may, after appearing, pay money into court to satisfy the claim, using Form 7. C.I. 47, Order 18 r.1 After appearance, the defendant may pay in — in satisfaction, on Form 7.
  7. Acceptance — 14 days. The plaintiff has fourteen days to accept the money in satisfaction; acceptance stays further proceedings on that head (and ordinarily carries costs to the date of payment in). Reject and recover no more than was paid in, and the plaintiff risks the costs wasted thereafter. The plaintiff has 14 days to take the money in full settlement, which stops that part of the case. Refuse it and fail to beat it at trial, and he may bear the later costs. C.I. 47, Order 18 r.3 14 days to accept — acceptance stays the claim; beat-it-not and you may pay the costs.
  8. The trap — not to be disclosed. The fact of payment into court is not pleaded and not communicated to the trial court until all questions of liability and amount are decided — so it is not treated as an admission. Exception: a defence of tender before action (then it IS pleaded). The trial judge is not told about the payment into court until liability and amount are settled, so it is not treated as an admission. The exception is a defence of tender before action. C.I. 47, Order 18 r.7 Hidden from the trial judge until liability & amount are decided — except a tender-before-action defence.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • A party seeks an order the wrong way — by letter, or ex parte where notice was required.. in a pending suit, a party writes a letter to the judge asking for an order — or files an ex parte motion for relief that plainly affects the other s… → motion
  • An ex parte order is obtained on thin grounds — or by hiding a material fact.. a party obtains an interim ex parte order, but the supporting affidavit neither shows why notice could not be given nor spells out the damage the on-… → ex parte Salloum
  • A motion is filed without a supporting affidavit.. a party files a motion seeking an order that turns on disputed facts, but attaches no affidavit; → every
  • Payment into court — disclosure to the trial judge, and the costs gamble.. the defendant pays a sum into court in satisfaction. → tender before action
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
14 Affidavits The governing order ORDER 20 C.I. 47 · O.20
Leading case Republic v Edward Wiredu; Ex parte Amidu[2001-2002] 1 GLR 272 — A defective affidavit is not automatically fatal: under Order 20 r.7 the court may, with leave and on such terms as it…
High-yield · examined 3× 8 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of the sworn statement that powers every motion. Order 20 (Affidavits, rr.1-15). An affidavit is a sworn/affirmed written statement of facts by a deponent (ex parte Atumfuwa), sworn before a Judge, Magistrate, Registrar or Commissioner for Oaths (r.2) and never the party's own lawyer (r.11, fatal). It bears the title of the cause (r.3); first person, numbered paragraphs, residence + occupation + whether employed by a party, signed, with a completed jurat (r.4). It contains only facts the deponent can prove — unless, for interlocutory proceedings, information or belief with the source and grounds (r.8). A defect in form is curable with leave (r.7, ex parte Amidu); scandal struck out (r.9); alterations initialled (r.10); documents exhibited and certified, not annexed (r.14); an illiterate or blind deponent needs a special jurat certificate (r.6). Four exam pivots: form & swearing; contents — only what you can prove (interlocutory info/belief with source & grounds); defects — form curable, own-lawyer fatal, scandal struck; exhibit, don't annex. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. Pivot #1 — swearing & who may take it. An affidavit is a sworn/affirmed written statement of facts by a deponent (ex parte Atumfuwa), sworn before a Judge, Magistrate, Registrar, Commissioner for Oaths or other authorised officer; and it bears the title of the cause. An affidavit is a written statement of facts that a person (the deponent) swears is true. They must swear it in front of a proper officer such as a judge, magistrate, registrar or Commissioner for Oaths, and it carries the same title as the case it belongs to. C.I. 47, Order 20 rr.1-3 · Oaths Act 1972 (NRCD 6) s.9(1) · ex parte Atumfuwa [1999-2000] 2 GLR 599 · Manual ch.14 §a-b Sworn before a proper officer; titled like the cause — a deponent's facts on oath.
  2. Pivot #1 (mechanics) — the form. First person; numbered consecutively; deponent's residence + occupation + whether employed by a party; divided into numbered paragraphs (one point each); signed by the deponent; jurat completed by the officer stating the full address, date, and the officer's name and title. Write it in the first person ("I"), in numbered paragraphs with one point each, and give the deponent's home address and job. The deponent signs at the end, and the officer fills in the jurat showing the address, the date, and the officer's own name and title. C.I. 47, Order 20 r.4 · Manual ch.14 §c First person — numbered paragraphs — address & occupation — proper officer & jurat.
  3. Pivot #2 — the contents (hearsay) rule. An affidavit contains only facts the deponent can prove (personal knowledge); UNLESS, for interlocutory proceedings, it states information or belief — with the source of the information and the grounds of the belief. An affidavit should only carry facts the deponent knows personally and could prove. The exception is in a side-application before trial, where they may swear to what they were told or believe, but only if they name who told them and give the grounds of that belief. C.I. 47, Order 20 r.8 · Manual ch.14 §e Only what you can prove — unless interlocutory: info/belief WITH its source & grounds.
  4. Pivot #3 — a defect in FORM is curable. An affidavit may, with leave of the court, be filed or used in evidence notwithstanding any irregularity in its form — a defective affidavit is not a nullity (ex parte Amidu). If an affidavit has a mistake in its form, the court can still allow it to be used, with permission. A defect in form does not make the affidavit worthless. C.I. 47, Order 20 r.7 · Republic v Edward Wiredu; Ex parte Amidu [2001-2002] 1 GLR 272 · Manual ch.14 §d Form defect? Curable with leave — the court may adopt a defective affidavit.
  5. Pivot #3 (the fatal flaws) — own lawyer; scandal; alterations. NOT acceptable if sworn before the party's own lawyer (or that lawyer's agent, partner or clerk) — r.11. Scandalous/offensive/irrelevant/oppressive matter may be struck out — r.9. An uninitialled interlineation/erasure/alteration is not used without leave — r.10. Some faults cannot be fixed. An affidavit is thrown out if it was sworn before the party's own lawyer (or that lawyer's clerk, partner or agent). Insulting or irrelevant matter can be struck out, and a change that was not initialled cannot be used without permission. C.I. 47, Order 20 rr.11, 9, 10 · Manual ch.14 §a Own-lawyer is fatal; scandal is struck; initial every alteration.
  6. Pivot #4 — exhibits. Any document used with an affidavit must be exhibited, not merely annexed or attached; identified by a certificate of the officer before whom it is sworn; the certificate titled like the affidavit. A document that goes with an affidavit must be exhibited, not just stapled on. The officer signs a certificate identifying it, and that certificate carries the same title as the affidavit. C.I. 47, Order 20 r.14 · Manual ch.14 §f Exhibit, don't annex — and certify it (titled like the affidavit).
  7. Illiterate or blind deponent. The officer must certify in the jurat that the affidavit was read to the deponent in his presence, that the deponent seemed perfectly to understand it, and signed/marked it in his presence; without the certificate it is not used unless the court is otherwise satisfied. If the deponent cannot read or is blind, the officer must read the affidavit to them, make sure they understood it, watch them sign or mark it, and certify all of this in the jurat. Without that certificate it is not used unless the court is satisfied another way. C.I. 47, Order 20 r.6 Illiterate/blind — read over, understood, marked: certify it in the jurat.
  8. Filing, multiple deponents & foreign affidavits. Every affidavit is filed in the registry and indorsed with on whose behalf and the date filed (un-indorsed → not used without leave, r.12); names of two or more deponents go in the jurat (r.5); a foreign affidavit is admitted without proof of the officer's seal or signature (r.15). Every affidavit is filed at the registry with a note of who filed it and when (without that note it is not used without permission). If two or more people swear together their names go in the jurat, and an affidavit sworn abroad is accepted without proof of the foreign officer's seal or signature. C.I. 47, Order 20 rr.12, 5, 15 File & indorse it; name multi-deponents in the jurat; foreign affidavits need no proof of seal.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • An affidavit is sworn before the party's own lawyer (or the lawyer's clerk).. a party's supporting affidavit is sworn before the very lawyer acting for that party — or before that lawyer's clerk, agent or partner sitting as Com…
  • An affidavit deposes to facts the deponent could not know — without sourcing them.. a deponent swears to events he plainly did not witness ("the defendant transferred the money", "the witness was bribed") with no indication of how he…
  • An affidavit has a defect in its form — is it fatal?. an affidavit has a mis-numbered paragraph, a jurat that omits part of the address, or some other irregularity in its form; → ex parte Amidu
  • Documents are stapled to an affidavit instead of exhibited — or an illiterate deponent swears with an ordinary jurat.. key documents are merely annexed to the affidavit, unmarked and uncertified;
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
15 Pre-Trial The governing order ORDERS 32–35 C.I. 47 · O.32–35 · O.21–23
Leading case Armah v Hydrafoam Estates Ltd[2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 1560 — An application for directions under Order 32 is a stock-taking exercise and a case-management tool;
High-yield · examined 3× 8 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of the pit-stop before trial. Orders 21 (Discovery), 22 (Interrogatories), 23 (Admissions), 32 (Application for Directions, with C.I. 133 ADR + C.I. 87 case management), and 33–35 (place & mode, setting down, chambers). Discovery: a list of documents within 14 days of close of pleadings (O.21 r.2), only if necessary (r.6), or risk strike-out / contempt (r.14). Interrogatories by leave, answered on affidavit (O.22 r.1). A request to admit answered in 14 days, or it is a deemed admission (O.23 r.3). The application for directions within one month (O.32 r.2) — a stock-taking / case-management tool whose default does not nullify proceedings (Armah v Hydrafoam); issues come from the pleadings (Hammond v Odoi); the court must ask about ADR (C.I. 133) and give case-management directions + a pre-trial checklist (C.I. 87). Place & mode (O.33), setting down + notice of trial one month ahead (O.34), chambers (O.35). Four exam pivots: discovery; interrogatories & admissions (the silence trap); the application for directions; ADR, case management & setting down. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. Pivot #1 — discovery ("all cards up"). After close of pleadings each party files, within fourteen days, a list of the documents in its possession, custody or power relating to the case; ordered discovery only where necessary to dispose fairly or save costs; inspection within seven days. Once pleadings close, each side must, within 14 days, list the documents it has that relate to the case, so nothing is hidden. The court only orders extra discovery where it is needed to be fair or to save costs, and the listed documents can be inspected within seven days. C.I. 47, Order 21 rr.2, 6, 7 · Manual ch.15 §a All cards up — list your documents in 14 days; ordered discovery only if necessary.
  2. Failure to make discovery. The court may dismiss the action, strike out the defence, bar use of a favourable document except with leave, or commit a party for contempt. If a party hides documents, the court can dismiss the claim, strike out the defence, stop them using a helpful document without permission, or punish them for contempt. C.I. 47, Order 21 r.14 Hide a document and the case can be struck out — or you can be committed for contempt.
  3. Pivot #2 — interrogatories. A party may, with leave, serve written questions answered on affidavit; leave only for what is necessary; an insufficient answer can be ordered fuller, and the answers may be put in evidence at trial. With the court's permission, one side may send the other written questions that must be answered on oath. Permission is only given for questions that are necessary, a poor answer can be ordered improved, and the answers can be used as evidence at trial. C.I. 47, Order 22 rr.1, 5, 7 · Manual ch.15 §b Questions on oath, by leave — necessary only; the answers are evidence at trial.
  4. Pivot #2 (the trap) — admissions. A request to admit a fact or a document's authenticity must be answered within fourteen days; failure to respond (or to specifically deny / give a reason) is a deemed admission; unreasonable refusal later proved carries costs; an admission is withdrawn only on consent or leave. If one side asks the other to admit a fact or that a document is genuine, the other must reply within 14 days. Saying nothing (or not clearly denying or giving a reason) counts as admitting it, refusing without good reason can mean paying costs, and an admission can only be taken back with consent or permission. C.I. 47, Order 23 rr.2, 3, 4, 5 · Manual ch.15 §c Silence on a request to admit = admission in 14 days.
  5. Pivot #3 — application for directions. The plaintiff files within one month of close of pleadings (≥8 days' notice); it is a stock-taking and case-management tool whose default does not nullify proceedings (Armah v Hydrafoam); the issues set down come from the pleadings — no departure (Hammond v Odoi). Within a month of pleadings closing the plaintiff asks the court for directions, a stock-taking step where the case is organised for trial. Missing it does not destroy the case, and the issues to be tried come from the pleadings, so a party cannot stray beyond them. C.I. 47, Order 32 rr.1-2 · Armah v Hydrafoam Estates Ltd [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 1560 · Hammond v Odoi & Another [1982-1983] 2 GLR 1215 · Manual ch.15 §d Directions = stock-taking within a month — default isn't fatal; issues come from the pleadings.
  6. Plaintiff's default. Where the plaintiff does not apply for directions, a defendant may apply for directions or apply to dismiss the action. If the plaintiff fails to ask for directions, the defendant can either ask for directions itself or apply to have the action dismissed. C.I. 47, Order 32 r.3 Plaintiff sleeps on directions — the defendant may take them, or move to dismiss.
  7. Pivot #4 — ADR & case management. At directions the court must enquire whether the parties will attempt ADR (unless not amenable by law); agreement → a ~one-month stay for mediation under Act 798, a settlement entered as judgment; the court then gives case-management directions and a pre-trial checklist, with strike-out / costs for non-compliance. At directions the court must ask whether the parties will try ADR (settling out of court) unless the law does not allow it. If they agree, the case is paused about a month for mediation and any settlement becomes a judgment, then the court sets a timetable and checklist and can strike out or order costs for non-compliance. C.I. 47, Order 32 r.5 (C.I. 133) + r.7A (C.I. 87) The court must ask about ADR — then manage the case (checklist / CMC), or strike out for default.
  8. Pivot #4 — place, mode & setting down. Place of trial is determined by the court (Act 459 s.38); mode is by a Judge alone unless a referee is ordered; the directions order fixes place/mode and the set-down period; the Registrar issues a notice of trial served at least one month before; a preliminary issue may dispose of the case; limited matters go to chambers. The court decides where and how the trial is held, normally before a judge sitting alone, and fixes when the case is set down. The registrar gives at least one month's notice of trial, a single key issue may be decided first to end the case, and small matters can be handled in chambers. C.I. 47, Order 33 rr.1-2,4-5 · Order 34 r.2 (C.I. 87) · Order 35 r.1 Court fixes place & mode (Judge alone); set down; notice of trial a month ahead.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • A party withholds or fails to disclose a relevant document.. after close of pleadings a party files no list of documents, or files one that omits a document plainly relevant to the issues, which later comes to…
  • A party ignores (or fudges) a request to admit.. a party is served with a request to admit a fact or the authenticity of a document and either does not respond within 14 days, or responds without sp… → deemed admitted
  • No application for directions is taken (or it is taken late).. the plaintiff fails to apply for directions within a month of close of pleadings, or applies late; → Armah v Hydrafoam
  • A party tries to raise at trial an issue it never pleaded.. at the application for directions, or at trial, a party seeks to set down or argue a case or defence different from what appears in its pleadings. → Hammond v Odoi
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
15A Commercial Actions The governing order ORDER 58 C.I. 47 · O.58
Leading case Armah v Hydrafoam Estates Ltd[2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 1560 — An application for directions under Order 32 is a stock-taking exercise and a case-management tool;
Lower-frequency 8 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of the special track for trade disputes. Order 58 (Commercial Actions, rr.1-10), as substituted by C.I. 133. A commercial claim is any claim arising out of trade and commerce (broad, non-exhaustive — r.2); Order 58 governs it in the Commercial Court and any High Court or Circuit Court (r.1), and despite Order 3 it may be heard at the nearest Commercial Court (r.9). It is commenced like an ordinary action (r.3); court and parties carry a duty to settle (r.4). After the reply: 7 days to assign a judge → 14 days to the pre-trial review conference → ADR enquiry → 30-day stay (+14) (rr.5, 7); settle = terms entered as a judgment in 7 days (r.8); fail = on to Orders 32-34. Mediation is without prejudice (r.6); a judge who mediates and fails is disqualified (r.5(15)). Four exam pivots: what/where; commence-as-ordinary; pre-trial ADR; protected & binding settlement. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. Pivot #1 — what a commercial claim is. A claim arising out of trade and commerce, on a broad, non-exhaustive list (companies, insolvency, commercial debts and contracts, import/export and carriage of goods, oil & gas, minerals, insurance, banking, IP, tax, commercial fraud, Act 992 applications, State land/construction) ending "any other claim of a commercial nature". A commercial claim is one arising from trade and business, on a wide list (companies, banking, insurance, goods, oil and minerals and so on) ending with any other claim of a commercial nature. C.I. 47, Order 58 r.2 · Manual ch.15A Trade & commerce, broadly — and "any other claim of a commercial nature".
  2. Pivot #1 (cont.) — where it applies, and venue. To the Commercial Division ("the Commercial Court") and the determination of a commercial claim filed in any High Court or Circuit Court (r.1); despite Order 3, a commercial claim may be heard at the nearest Commercial Court (r.9). These rules run in the Commercial Court, and a commercial case can be heard at the nearest one even if the normal venue rules would send it elsewhere. C.I. 47, Order 58 rr.1, 9 Commercial Court or any HC/Circuit Court — nearest Commercial Court, despite Order 3.
  3. Pivot #2 — commenced as ordinary; reform after pleadings. A commercial claim is commenced and regulated like any High Court action (writ, appearance, defence, counterclaim, reply); Order 58 reforms how the case is managed after the close of pleadings, for speed. A commercial case starts like any ordinary High Court action; Order 58 only changes how it is managed after pleadings close, to make it faster. C.I. 47, Order 58 r.3 · Manual ch.15A Same writ, appearance, defence, reply — Order 58 changes the management, not the filing.
  4. The duty to settle. The court has a duty to encourage amicable resolution and early settlement; the parties have a corresponding obligation to assist. The court must push the parties to settle early and amicably, and the parties must help. C.I. 47, Order 58 r.4 Court must encourage settlement; parties must help.
  5. Pivot #3 — the pre-trial review timetable. After the reply: the Registrar assigns a judge within 7 days; the judge invites the parties within 14 days to a pre-trial review conference and enquires about ADR (mediation, negotiation, arbitration), unless the dispute is by law not amenable to settlement. After the reply there is a tight timetable: a judge is assigned within 7 days and calls the parties within 14 days to a pre-trial conference to explore settlement. C.I. 47, Order 58 r.5(1)-(3) · Manual ch.15A 7 days to a judge, 14 days to the conference, then "will you settle by ADR?"
  6. The election, the stay, and the exit. On agreement the parties sign a witnessed form; the judge stays proceedings up to 30 days (extendable up to 14 more, r.7); if settlement fails the judge records it and the case proceeds under Orders 32, 33 and 34. If the parties agree to try settlement the judge pauses the case for up to 30 days (a little more if needed); if it fails the case carries on to trial. C.I. 47, Order 58 r.5(4)-(6), r.7 Sign the form → stay 30 days (+14) → settle, or on to Orders 32-34.
  7. Protected settlement; disqualified judge-mediator. Mediation disclosures are not admissions and the mediator is not a witness (not in arbitration); a pre-trial judge who mediates and fails is disqualified from the trial. What is said in mediation cannot be used as an admission later, and a judge who tries to mediate and fails cannot then try the case. C.I. 47, Order 58 r.6, r.5(15) The table is off the record; the judge who mediates and fails steps aside.
  8. Pivot #4 — the deal becomes a judgment. Terms of settlement are drafted, read over, signed, binding and filed; within 7 days the parties appear to have them entered as a judgment of the court. Once settlement terms are signed they are binding and filed, and within 7 days the court enters them as its judgment. C.I. 47, Order 58 r.8 Settle, sign, file — entered as a judgment within 7 days.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • A party assumes the commercial track needs a different commencement, or doubts a claim qualifies.. a litigant is unsure whether a trade dispute belongs in the Commercial Court, or thinks a commercial claim is begun by some special process.
  • A party wants to head straight to trial in a commercial action.. after pleadings close in a commercial claim, a party presses for an immediate trial date and resists any settlement step.
  • A party miscounts the stay, or fears candour at the settlement table.. parties elect ADR;
  • The parties let the pre-trial judge mediate; or a settlement is reached and a party reneges.. the parties invite the pre-trial judge to mediate and it fails;
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
16 Interlocutory Injunctions The governing order ORDER 25 C.I. 47 · O.25
Leading case 18th July Ltd v Yehans International Ltd[2012] 1 SCGLR 167 — An interlocutory injunction is granted only where the applicant satisfies a three-prong test: (1) the claim raises a se…
High-yield · examined 3× 8 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of freezing the battlefield until trial. Order 25 (Interlocutory Injunction · Interim Preservation of Property, rr.1-9). The three-prong test: a serious issue requiring judicial determination; irreparable harm not adequately compensable by damages; and the balance of convenience (18th July Ltd v Yehans International Ltd; Welford Quarcoo v A-G; Ransford France (No.1) v EC; root American Cyanamid). The application is motion + affidavit + statement of case (r.1(3)); never before the writ issues (r.1(12)). Ex parte only in urgency, with reasons + the precise irreparable damage (r.1(7)-(8)); the order lasts at most ten days and lapses unless extended on notice (r.1(9)-(10)). The undertaking as to damages is a precondition where the application is opposed (r.9). Interim preservation of property (r.2); early trial (r.5). Four exam pivots: the three-prong test; the paper set; ex parte & the ten-day clock; the undertaking as to damages. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. Pivot #1 — the three-prong test. An interlocutory injunction is granted only where the applicant shows a serious issue requiring judicial determination, irreparable harm not adequately compensable by damages, AND that the balance of convenience favours the grant. All three are needed. Before granting an injunction pending trial the court needs all three things: a genuine issue worth trying, harm that money damages could not properly repair, and a balance of convenience that favours granting it. 18th July Ltd v Yehans International Ltd [2012] 1 SCGLR 167 · Welford Quarcoo v A-G [2012] 1 SCGLR 259 · Ransford France (No.1) v EC & A-G [2012] 1 SCGLR 689 · root: American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396 · Manual ch.16 Serious issue — irreparable harm (damages won't do) — balance of convenience. All three.
  2. The power, and its purpose. The court may grant an injunction wherever it is just or convenient, on terms; a party may apply before or after trial, whether or not claimed in the writ. It preserves the status quo and is NOT a decision on the merits. A plaintiff may not apply before the writ issues. The court can grant an injunction whenever it is just or convenient, on conditions, and a party may ask before or after trial even if it was not in the writ. It freezes things as they are and is not a decision on who is right, and you cannot apply before the writ is issued. C.I. 47, Order 25 r.1(1)-(2), (12) Just or convenient; preserves the status quo — never before the writ issues.
  3. Pivot #2 — the application: motion + affidavit + STATEMENT OF CASE. The applicant attaches to the motion paper and affidavit a statement of case of full arguments and authorities; an opposing respondent files an affidavit in opposition AND its own statement of case; a draft order is filed where possible; the court may decide on the papers. To apply you file a motion, an affidavit, and a statement of case setting out your full arguments and authorities. The other side replies with an affidavit in opposition and its own statement of case, a draft order is filed where possible, and the court may decide on the papers alone. C.I. 47, Order 25 r.1(3)-(6) · Manual ch.16 Motion + affidavit + statement of case — the third document candidates forget.
  4. Pivot #3 — ex parte, in urgency only. In urgency a party may apply ex parte on affidavit; not granted unless the applicant gives sufficient reasons for going ex parte AND specifies the irreparable damage the ordinary route would cause (full and frank disclosure still owed — ex parte Salloum). In a real emergency a party may apply without telling the other side, on affidavit, but only if they give good reasons for not giving notice and spell out the irreparable damage the normal route would cause. They must still be completely honest with the court. C.I. 47, Order 25 r.1(7)-(8) · cf. ex parte Salloum [2011] 1 SCGLR 574 (Part 13) Ex parte only in urgency — reasons for no-notice + the precise irreparable damage.
  5. Pivot #3 (the clock) — the ten-day life. An ex parte injunction lasts no more than ten days and lapses after ten days unless an application on notice to extend it is made (unless the court otherwise directs); any affected party may apply to set it aside. An injunction granted without notice lasts no more than ten days and lapses after ten days unless the party applies on notice to extend it. Anyone affected can ask the court to set it aside. C.I. 47, Order 25 r.1(9)-(11) Ex parte dies in ten days — extend on notice or it lapses; it can be set aside.
  6. Pivot #4 — the undertaking as to damages. Where an application under rr.1-2 is opposed, the court SHALL require, before making the order, an undertaking by the applicant to pay any damages the respondent suffers if the applicant turns out not to be entitled; the undertaking is a precondition, and the court assesses the damages at the end. If the application is opposed the court must, before granting it, make the applicant promise to pay any damages the other side suffers if the applicant turns out to be wrong. No promise means no order, and the court works out the damages at the end. C.I. 47, Order 25 r.9 Opposed? No undertaking, no order — promise to pay if you were wrong; assessed at the end.
  7. Interim preservation of property. The court may order the disputed property detained, kept, preserved or inspected, authorise entry onto land, and order a disputed fund paid into court or secured (a defendant only after appearance). The court can order the disputed property to be kept safe, detained, preserved or inspected, allow someone to enter land, and order a disputed sum of money paid into court or secured (a defendant only after entering appearance). C.I. 47, Order 25 r.2 Detain · preserve · inspect the thing; pay a disputed fund into court.
  8. Early trial & the related powers. Where the dispute is better resolved that way, the court may order an early trial and fix its place and mode (r.5); it may also take samples (r.3), sell perishable property (r.4), allow income of property pending suit (r.8), and release goods held under a lien on payment into court (r.6). Where it is the better way to settle things, the court can order an early trial and fix where and how it runs. It can also take samples, sell property that would spoil, allow the income of property to be used while the case runs, and release goods held under a lien once money is paid into court. C.I. 47, Order 25 rr.3-6, 8 Better resolved fast? Order an early trial — plus samples, perishables, income, lien release.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • A party seeks (or opposes) an interlocutory injunction.. the subject matter of a pending suit is about to be sold, altered or destroyed, and one party applies to restrain it until trial; → 18th July Ltd v Yehans International
  • An ex parte injunction is obtained — and the days tick by.. a party obtains an ex parte injunction in urgency, then does nothing further; → ex parte Salloum
  • The court is asked to grant an injunction in an opposed application — but no undertaking is offered.. the application for an injunction (or a preservation order) is opposed, and the applicant asks the court to grant it without offering any undertaking…
  • A plaintiff applies for an injunction before issuing the writ — or files only a motion and affidavit.. a would-be plaintiff rushes to court for an injunction before any writ has been issued;
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
17 Trial The governing order ORDERS 36–40 C.I. 47 · O.36–40
Leading case Ali Yusuf Issah (No.2) v The Republic (No.2)[2003-2004] 1 SCGLR 174 (at 178) — The grant or refusal of an adjournment is a matter for the discretion of the court, to be exercised judicially in the i…
Lower-frequency 8 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of the day of reckoning. Orders 36 (Proceedings at Trial), 37 (Adjournments and Delays) and 38 (Evidence Generally). Failure to attend (O.36 r.1) and the 14-day set-aside (r.2); the order of speeches (r.4); trials in public; evidence is oral, in court (O.38 r.1; the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323) is the substantive law); the witness-statement regime — statement of truth, stands as the evidence-in-chief, fail-to-serve bars oral evidence without leave (O.38 rr.3B-3G, C.I. 87); affidavit/video-link evidence (rr.2, 3A); the writ of subpoena (rr.10-13); adjournment is the court's discretion (Ali Yusuf Issah (No.2); ex parte Sian Goldfields); the delay clocks — 6 months → 28 days' notice, 12 months → struck out for want of prosecution (O.37 rr.3-4). Four exam pivots: failure to attend + set-aside; order of speeches; evidence (oral + witness statements); adjournments & delays. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. Pivot #1 — failure to attend. All parties absent → the action may be struck off the trial list; one party absent → the present party proves its claim/counterclaim and the absent party's claim or defence is dismissed (or any other just order). If nobody turns up for the trial the case can be taken off the list. If only one side turns up, that side proves its case and the missing side's claim or defence is thrown out. C.I. 47, Order 36 r.1 · Manual ch.17 §b All absent → struck off; one absent → the present party proves, the absentee's case falls.
  2. Pivot #1 (the door back) — set aside in absence. A judgment obtained against a party who failed to attend the trial may be set aside or varied on just terms, on application made within fourteen days after the trial. If you lost because you missed the trial, you can ask the court to cancel that judgment, but you must apply within fourteen days and give a fair reason. C.I. 47, Order 36 r.2 Judgment in your absence? Apply to set it aside within 14 days — its own clock.
  3. Place & mode. Trials are conducted in public unless the law provides otherwise; a trial proceeds on oral and/or documentary evidence. Trials happen in public unless the law says otherwise, and they run on spoken evidence, written evidence, or both. Order 1 r.2 · Manual ch.17 §a Justice in the open — trials are public.
  4. Pivot #2 — the order of speeches. The plaintiff begins; if the defendant calls no evidence the plaintiff closes and the defendant states the case; if the defendant calls evidence the plaintiff may reply; where the burden on all issues is the defendant's, the defendant begins; a fresh point of law in the final speech earns the opponent a reply on that point only. There is a set order for who speaks. The plaintiff goes first, and whether the defendant gets the last word depends on whether the defendant brings any evidence. C.I. 47, Order 36 r.4 Plaintiff begins; defendant elects to call evidence or not; plaintiff replies (defendant begins if the burden's all his).
  5. Pivot #3 — evidence is oral, in court. A fact to be proved by a witness is proved by oral evidence given in court, subject to the Constitution and the Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323) — the substantive law of admissibility and burden; Order 38 is the procedural means. A witness proves a fact by speaking in court, and what counts as proper evidence is governed by the Constitution and the Evidence Act. C.I. 47, Order 38 r.1 (C.I. 87) · Evidence Act 1975 (NRCD 323) · Manual ch.17 §c Evidence is oral, in court — admissibility & burden live in NRCD 323.
  6. Pivot #3 — witness statements. A witness statement (signed, verified by a statement of truth) is filed at the directions stage and stands as the witness's evidence-in-chief; the witness is cross-examined on it; a witness whose statement is not served is not called without leave. Each witness's main story is written and signed before the trial, and in court the witness is only questioned on it. Fail to file it and the witness is not heard without permission. C.I. 47, Order 38 rr.3B-3G (C.I. 87) The witness statement (+ statement of truth) IS the evidence-in-chief — serve it or no oral evidence without leave.
  7. Other evidence routes. The court may order an affidavit read at trial (r.2) and allow video-link evidence (r.3A); a reluctant witness is compelled by a writ of subpoena (Form 14), served personally within twelve weeks of issue (rr.10-13); experts may be limited (r.4); plans/photos need ten days' inspection (r.5). Evidence can also come in other ways, by sworn affidavit, by video link, or by ordering a reluctant witness to attend (a subpoena). C.I. 47, Order 38 rr.2, 3A, 4, 5, 10-13 Affidavit / video-link evidence; subpoena to compel — personal service within 12 weeks.
  8. Pivot #4 — adjournments & delays. Adjournment is the court's discretion in the interest of justice (no automatic right); all must avoid delay; six months idle → 28 days' notice of intention to proceed; twelve months idle with no notice → struck out for want of prosecution. Putting off a trial is up to the court, there is no automatic right to it. Leave a case sleeping too long and it can be struck out for delay. C.I. 47, Order 37 rr.1-4 · Order 36 r.3 · Ali Yusuf Issah (No.2) v The Republic (No.2) [2003-2004] 1 SCGLR 174 · Ex parte Sian Goldfields Ltd [2009] SCGLR 204 Adjournment is discretion; 6 months → 28 days' notice; 12 months → struck out for want of prosecution.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • A party does not attend the trial.. when the action is called for trial, one party (or both) does not appear;
  • A dispute over who begins, or a surprise authority in the closing speech.. the parties disagree on who should open;
  • A witness statement is not served, or a witness is not called.. a party wants to call a witness whose statement was never served in time;
  • Repeated adjournments, or a case that has gone to sleep.. a party seeks adjournment after adjournment; → Ali Yusuf Issah
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
18 Judgments and Orders The governing order ORDERS 41–42 C.I. 47 · O.41 · O.42
Leading case Anang Sowah v Adams[2009] SCGLR 111 — A court's decision may be a judgment, an order or a ruling.
High-yield · examined 6× 8 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of the verdict. Order 41 (Judgments and Orders, rr.1-8) + the State Proceedings Act, 1998 (Act 555). A decision may be a judgment, order or ruling. A declaratory judgment declares rights but commands nothing and is not executable (r.1; Anang Sowah v Adams; Mensah v GFA). Judgment must be delivered within six weeks of the close of the case (evidence + final speeches), but delay does not oust jurisdiction (r.2; Ex parte ERDC; Ex parte Aaba). A judgment takes effect from its date (r.5); orders are drawn up unless trivial (r.6); the party seeking judgment draws it up and enters it with the Registrar — the first step toward enforcement (r.7); money may be paid by instalments (r.8). No execution against the State without a s.15 certificate (Act 555; Ex parte A-G, Maud Nongo). Order 42 (Review) is repealed (C.I. 133). Four exam pivots: declaratory judgments; the six-week rule; drawing up & entry; judgments against the State. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. Pivot #1 — declaratory judgments. A decision may be a judgment, order or ruling. A declaratory judgment declares the parties' rights but commands nothing and is NOT executable; the court may declare a right whether or not consequential relief is or could be claimed. A court decision can be a judgment, an order or a ruling. A declaratory judgment simply states what the parties' rights are. It commands nothing and cannot be enforced, so you add a consequential order if you need it carried out. C.I. 47, Order 41 r.1 · Anang Sowah v Adams [2009] SCGLR 111 · Mensah v Ghana Football Association [1989-1990] 1 GLR 1 · Manual ch.18 §a A declaration declares rights — commands nothing, executes nothing; add a consequential order to enforce.
  2. Pivot #2 — the six-week delivery rule. The court must deliver judgment as soon as possible and not later than six weeks after the close of the case (closed when evidence is given and final speeches concluded; vacations excluded); late delivery triggers the Chief-Justice machinery. The court must give judgment as soon as possible, and no later than six weeks after the case closes (when the evidence and final speeches are done, vacations aside). Miss that and the Chief Justice steps in to fix a date. C.I. 47, Order 41 r.2 (r.2A video link, C.I. 87) Judgment within six weeks of close of case (evidence + final speeches) — or the Chief Justice fixes a date.
  3. Delay does not oust jurisdiction. The court's inability to deliver within six weeks does NOT take away its jurisdiction to deliver later; a late judgment is valid (the rule is directory). Missing the six weeks does not strip the court of power to give judgment later. A late judgment is still perfectly valid, because the six-week rule is a duty, not a deadline that kills the case. Republic v High Court, Koforidua; Ex parte ERDC [2003-2004] SCGLR 21 · Ex parte Aaba [2001-2002] SCGLR 545 · Manual ch.18 §b A late judgment still stands — six weeks is a duty, not a destroyer.
  4. Form, date & effect. An order is marked with the judge's name and sealed (r.3); a judgment requiring an act specifies the time, running from service (except pay-money / possession / delivery) (r.4); it takes effect from the day of its date, dated as pronounced unless the court directs otherwise (r.5). An order carries the judge's name and seal, and a judgment that orders someone to do something sets the time, usually running from when it is served. The judgment takes effect from its date, which is the day it is pronounced unless the court says otherwise. C.I. 47, Order 41 rr.3-5 Marked, sealed, dated — takes effect from its date; specify the time for any act.
  5. Pivot #3 — drawing up & entry. The party seeking judgment draws it up and presents it to the Registrar, who enters it in the book, files it and returns a duplicate; an order is drawn up by the party in whose favour it is made (7 days, else any affected party). Every order is drawn up unless trivial (then a signed note suffices). The winning party writes the judgment up and gives it to the Registrar, who records it, files it, and returns a copy. An order is drawn up by the party it favours, within 7 days, and this drawing-up is the first step toward enforcing it. C.I. 47, Order 41 rr.6-7 (Forms 17-17F) · Manual ch.19 Draw up & enter the judgment — the first step toward enforcement.
  6. Payment by instalments. Where a judgment directs payment of money, the court may, for sufficient reason, order payment by instalments (rescindable on cause); execution does not issue until default in an instalment. Where a judgment is for money, the court can, for good reason, allow payment by instalments, with or without interest. No enforcement is taken out unless and until an instalment is missed. C.I. 47, Order 41 r.8 Instalments allowed — execution waits until an instalment is missed.
  7. Pivot #4 — judgments against the State. Civil actions against the State are regulated by the State Proceedings Act, 1998 (Act 555); a certificate must issue under s.15 after judgment before any execution can be levied against the State. Suing the State is governed by its own Act. After you win, a special certificate must first be issued before any enforcement can be taken against the State. State Proceedings Act, 1998 (Act 555) s.15 · Ex parte A-G (Maud Nongo) [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 70 · Manual ch.18 §c Beat the State? No execution without a s.15 certificate first.
  8. Review is repealed. The review procedure formerly in Order 42 of C.I. 47 was repealed by C.I. 133 (2020); there is no High Court review — a dissatisfied party appeals, it does not "review". The old High Court review procedure has been scrapped. There is no review of a High Court judgment any more. A party who is unhappy with the decision must appeal instead. Order 42 (Review) repealed by C.I. 133 (2020), s.2 No more review (Order 42 gone) — the remedy after judgment is an appeal.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • A party wins only a declaration, then tries to enforce it.. a plaintiff obtains a declaratory judgment (e.g. → Anang Sowah v Adams
  • Judgment is delivered more than six weeks after the close of the case.. the judge delivers judgment well after six weeks from the close of the case, and the losing party applies to have it set aside as a nullity for breac… → ex parte ERDC
  • A judgment creditor tries to execute against the State (or applies for a "review").. a party who has won a money judgment against a Government body instructs a bailiff to seize State property; → Ex parte A-G, Maud Nongo
  • A money judgment is given, and the debtor cannot pay in one lump — or the drawn-up judgment overstates the award.. a defendant ordered to pay a sum genuinely cannot pay it at once;
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
19 Enforcement of Judgments The governing order ORDER 43 C.I. 47 · O.43
Leading case Akowuah & Another v Amoo & Another[2012] 1 SCGLR 261; [2012] GHASC 6 — The first step in enforcing a judgment is to draw it up and enter it (Order 41 r.7), then serve the Entry of Judgment p…
Lower-frequency 8 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of making the verdict bite. Order 43 (Enforcement of Judgments and Orders, rr.1-13), built on the entry bridge of Order 41 r.7. The first step in enforcement is to draw up, enter and serve the judgment (Akowuah v Amoo; Abireh v A-G): the winner is the judgment creditor, the loser the judgment debtor. The mode follows the nature of the judgment — money → fi.fa / garnishee / charging order / receiver (r.1); land → a writ of possession with leave (r.3); goods → a writ of delivery (r.4); an act → committal or sequestration (r.5). No committal/sequestration without personal service + a penal notice (r.7). An appeal is not a stay — apply for one, on matters arising since the judgment (r.11; Takyi v Ghassoub). Four exam pivots: entry first; the menu of modes; the penal-notice gateway; stay of execution. The writs themselves are Part 20. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. Pivot #1 — entry is the first step in enforcement. The winner is the judgment creditor, the loser the judgment debtor. The first step is to draw up, enter (O.41 r.7) and serve the judgment personally; without entry there is nothing to enforce. Before you can enforce a win you must first write the judgment up, enter it, and serve it. Until that is done there is nothing to enforce. C.I. 47, Order 41 r.7 · Akowuah v Amoo [2012] 1 SCGLR 261 · Abireh v A-G [1992] 1 GLR 467 · Manual ch.19 Draw up, enter, serve — no entry, no enforcement.
  2. Executable vs not. You enforce an order that commands (payment, possession, delivery, an act done/abstained); a bare declaration commands nothing and is not executable — enforce the consequential order, not the declaration. Only a judgment that orders something (pay, hand over, do or stop an act) can be enforced. A judgment that merely declares a position commands nothing on its own. Konki · Manual ch.18 (declaratory) · O.41 r.1 Enforce a command, not a trophy.
  3. Pivot #2 — money: the menu of five. A money judgment may be enforced by one or more of: a writ of fieri facias, garnishee proceedings, a charging order, the appointment of a receiver, or (where r.5 applies) committal/sequestration. To collect a money judgment you can pick from five tools: seize and sell goods, intercept money owed to the debtor, charge their property, appoint a receiver, or commit for contempt. C.I. 47, Order 43 r.1 Money? fi.fa · garnishee · charge · receiver.
  4. Land & goods: the mode follows the nature. Possession of land → a writ of possession, with the leave of the court and notice to occupiers (r.3); delivery of goods → a writ of delivery, or a writ of specific delivery with leave (r.4). To get land back you use a writ of possession (with the court's leave and notice to occupiers); to get goods back you use a writ of delivery. C.I. 47, Order 43 rr.3-4 Land → writ of possession (leave); goods → writ of delivery.
  5. Pivot #3 — an act: committal or sequestration. Where a person refuses to do an act in time, or disobeys an order to abstain, the judgment is enforced by committal (prison for contempt) or a writ of sequestration, with leave. If someone refuses to do what the court ordered, or does what was banned, they can be sent to prison for contempt or have their property seized. C.I. 47, Order 43 r.5 Disobey a "do/abstain" order → committal or sequestration (with leave).
  6. The penal-notice gateway. No committal or sequestration unless a copy of the order was served personally (before the time to comply expired) bearing an indorsed penal notice that disobedience means liability to execution; service may be dispensed with only if just. You cannot jail or seize for disobedience unless the order was personally served first with a clear warning on it that disobedience leads to enforcement. C.I. 47, Order 43 r.7 No penal notice, no jail — warn personally, in writing, first.
  7. Pivot #4 — an appeal is not a stay. An appeal does not of itself stay execution; the creditor enforces unless the loser applies for, and is granted, a stay — available on the ground of matters occurring since the judgment. Filing an appeal does not freeze enforcement by itself. The winner can still enforce unless the loser applies for and is granted a stay. C.I. 47, Order 43 r.11 · Takyi v Ghassoub (Ghana) Ltd [1987-88] 2 GLR 52 An appeal does not freeze execution — APPLY for a stay.
  8. Compel the act · non-parties · conditions · the 12-year bar. The court may have a disobeyed act done at the defaulter's expense (r.8); a non-party enforces and is enforced against as if a party (r.9); failing a condition abandons the judgment (r.10); a judgment unexecuted for 12 years is barred. The court can have the job done at the defaulter's cost, can bind non-parties, treats a missed condition as giving up the judgment, and a judgment left unused for twelve years dies. C.I. 47, Order 43 rr.8-10 · Limitation Act 1972 (NRCD 54) s.5(2) Do-it-at-his-cost · non-parties bound · fail the condition, lose the benefit · 12-year limit.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • A judgment creditor picks the wrong mode for the judgment.. a creditor with a judgment for possession of land tries to enforce it by a writ of fieri facias, or a creditor with a money judgment applies straight… → possession of land
  • A party is committed for disobeying an order he was never properly served with.. a judgment debtor disobeys an order to do (or abstain from) an act, and the creditor applies to commit him for contempt — but the order was never ser…
  • A judgment debtor files an appeal and treats it as an automatic freeze.. a debtor against whom judgment has been given files a notice of appeal and refuses to satisfy the judgment, asserting that the appeal stays execution. → Takyi v Ghassoub
  • A creditor sleeps on a judgment, or a non-party / condition complicates enforcement.. a creditor tries to execute a judgment more than twelve years old;
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
20 Execution The governing order ORDERS 44–50 C.I. 47 · O.44 · 45 · 47 · 49 · 50
Leading case Ackah v Ghana Commercial Bank[2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 1157 — A writ of execution includes a writ of fieri facias, possession, delivery and sequestration;
High-yield · examined 4× 8 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of carrying out the judgment. Orders 44-50 (receivers & sequestration seated in Order 43). A writ of execution (fi.fa, possession, delivery, sequestration) runs nationwide and binds goods from issue — but a debtor's land is spared while he has enough movables (Ackah v GCB); leave is needed in five cases; a writ lives 12 months. A writ of fi.fa seizes and sells: 7-day / 21-day sale notice; set aside a land sale within 21 days only on substantial injury, then it is absolute. Examine the debtor, then garnishee a third party who owes him money — nisi → absolute, only a debt due or accruing (State Construction v Hasnaw). A charging order locks his land/securities; committal jails for contempt, proved beyond reasonable doubt (Boamah). Four exam pivots: the writ; fi.fa; garnishee; charging orders & committal. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. Pivot #1 — the writ of execution. "Writ of execution" = fi.fa, possession, delivery, sequestration; runs nationwide and binds goods from issue (saving a bona-fide buyer). Immovable property is not levied if the debtor shows sufficient movables; leave is needed in five cases; a writ lives 12 months, renewable. A writ of execution is the order that enforces a judgment, by seizing and selling goods, giving possession, delivering goods, or holding property. It works anywhere in the country and binds the debtor's goods from the moment it issues (though an honest buyer is protected), land is not taken if there are enough movable goods, a few situations need the court's leave, and the writ lasts 12 months and can be renewed. C.I. 47, Order 44 rr.1-3, 9 · Ackah v Ghana Commercial Bank [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 1157 · Manual ch.20 One writ, nationwide — movables before immovables; leave if stale/changed/deceased/conditional/receiver; lives 12 months.
  2. Pivot #2 — the writ of fieri facias. A money judgment is enforced by fi.fa: seize and sell enough property for the debt, interest and costs (method follows the thing); alienation during attachment is void and a contempt. A judgment for money is enforced by seizing and selling enough of the debtor's property to cover the debt, interest and costs. If the debtor gives that property away while it is under attachment, the transfer is void and is a contempt of court. C.I. 47, Order 45 rr.1, 4, 6 Fi.fa = seize & sell; freeze shares/land by prohibitory order; alienation during attachment is void.
  3. Sale in execution. Sale is by public auction: 7 days notice for movables, 21 days for land; a land sale is set aside within 21 days only on proof of substantial injury; otherwise it becomes absolute and the purchaser's certificate transfers the debtor's title. Property is sold by public auction, with 7 days notice for goods and 21 days for land. A land sale can only be cancelled within 21 days, and only if real harm is proved; otherwise it stands for good and the buyer's certificate passes the debtor's title to them. C.I. 47, Order 45 rr.8-12 7 days / 21 days notice; set aside only on substantial injury; then the sale is absolute.
  4. Stay of execution by fi.fa. The court may stay fi.fa — absolutely or on terms — for special circumstances or the applicant's inability to pay, on affidavit disclosing means; an appeal is not a stay. The court can pause a money-judgment seizure, fully or on conditions, for special reasons or because the debtor genuinely cannot pay, shown by an affidavit of their means. Simply filing an appeal does not pause it. C.I. 47, Order 45 r.15 · Takyi v Ghassoub (Ghana) Ltd [1987-88] 2 GLR 52 Fi.fa can be stayed for special circumstances / inability to pay — but an appeal is not a stay.
  5. Pivot #3 — examination & garnishee. The court may examine the debtor on his assets (O.46); then garnishee a third party who owes him money — order nisi (show cause, served 7 days, attaches the debt) then absolute. Only a debt due or accruing (a real creditor-debtor relationship) can be caught. The court can question the debtor about what he owns, then catch money a third party owes him by a garnishee order: first an order nisi telling that third party to show cause (served 7 days, which freezes the debt), then made absolute. Only a real debt actually owed or building up can be caught. C.I. 47, Orders 46-47 · State Construction Corporation v Hasnaw Co. Ltd [2001-2002] 1 GLR 141 · Barclays Bank v Ghana Cables Co. Ltd [1998-99] SCGLR 1 Examine, then garnishee — nisi to absolute; only a real debt due or accruing.
  6. Pivot #4 — charging orders & committal. A charging order fixes a charge on the debtor's land/securities (nisi → absolute; no enforcement for 3 months); committal punishes contempt by application + affidavit + personal service, proved beyond reasonable doubt. A charging order puts a charge on the debtor's land or shares (first nisi, then absolute, with no enforcing for 3 months). Committal punishes someone who defies a court order by jailing them, but only on application, affidavit and personal service, and only if proved beyond reasonable doubt. C.I. 47, Orders 49-50 · Boamah & Ansah Sikatuo v Amponsah [2012] 1 SCGLR 58 Charge the land (nisi→absolute, wait 3 months); jail for contempt only beyond reasonable doubt.
  7. Stop orders & stop notices. The court may make a stop order on funds in court and a stop notice on securities, freezing dealings so the asset cannot vanish before the charge bites. The court can make a stop order on money held in court and a stop notice on securities, freezing any dealing with them so the asset cannot disappear before the charge takes hold. C.I. 47, Order 49 rr.9-14 Stop order (funds in court) + stop notice (securities) = freeze it so it can't disappear.
  8. Receivers & sequestration. A receiver is appointed to collect the income of the debtor's property; a writ of sequestration sends commissioners to hold his property until he obeys — both need the leave of the court. A receiver can be appointed to collect the income of the debtor's property, and a writ of sequestration sends officers to hold his property until he obeys the court. Both need the court's leave. C.I. 47, Order 43 r.1(1)(d) & r.1(3) · Order 44 r.6 · Manual ch.20 Receiver collects his income; sequestration holds his property till he obeys — both need leave.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • A creditor levies on the debtor's land while he has movables.. a judgment creditor instructs a sale of the debtor's house, though the debtor has movable property within the jurisdiction sufficient to satisfy the… → Ackah v Ghana Commercial Bank
  • A sale of land is challenged, or a stale writ is used.. a debtor applies to set aside a sale of his land for an irregularity in the auction;
  • A creditor garnishees a stranger, or money not truly owed.. a judgment creditor seeks a garnishee order against a person who has no debt owing to the judgment debtor, or against money that merely might become… → State Construction Corporation v Hasnaw Co. Ltd
  • A party seeks committal on thin or disputed evidence.. an applicant moves to commit a person for contempt on a bare or disputed affidavit, with the alleged contemnor swearing a contradictory account; → Boamah & Ansah Sikatuo v Amponsah
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
21 Interpleader Actions The governing order ORDER 48 C.I. 47 · O.48
Leading case Attorney-General v The Bank of West Africa Ltd[1965] GLR 245 — Interpleader lies in two situations (Order 48 r.1): (a) stakeholder's interpleader, where the applicant is under liabil…
High-yield · examined 5× 8 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of the man in the middle. Order 48 (Interpleader, rr.1-12), the Registrar's branch linked to Order 44 rr.12-13. Interpleader lets a holder who claims no interest, but faces two or more rival claimants, bring them before the court to fight it out. Two kinds: stakeholder's (r.1(a); AG v Bank of West Africa) and Registrar's / sheriff's (r.1(b)). The applicant must prove he claims no interest (but for costs), is not in collusion, and is willing to pay the thing into court (r.4). Claimants must file particulars in 7 days or be deemed to abandon (r.6); the court makes a claimant a defendant or states an issue to try (r.7); a claimant who fails to appear is forever barred against the applicant (r.10). Four exam pivots: the two kinds; the three proofs; the procedure; default bars the claimant. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. Pivot #1 — the two kinds of interpleader. Relief lies where (a) the applicant is under liability for a debt/money/goods and is or expects to be sued by two or more claimants making adverse titles (stakeholder); or (b) the applicant is a Registrar/officer who has taken property in execution and a person other than the judgment debtor claims it (Registrar's/sheriff's). Interpleader helps a person caught in the middle. It applies either where someone holding money or goods is, or expects to be, sued by two or more people claiming the same thing (a stakeholder), or where a court officer who has seized property in execution faces a claim to it from someone other than the debtor (a Registrar's interpleader). C.I. 47, Order 48 r.1 · Attorney-General v The Bank of West Africa [1965] GLR 245-SC · Manual ch.21 Stakeholder = private holder sued by 2+ claimants; Registrar's = a stranger claims goods seized in execution.
  2. Interpleader is a shield, not confined to execution. It protects a holder who claims no interest from being crushed between rival claimants; stakeholder interpleader can arise independently of any judgment or execution. Interpleader is a shield for a holder who wants none of the property, saving him from being crushed between rival claimants. A stakeholder can use it even where there is no judgment or execution at all. C.I. 47, Order 48 r.1(a) · Attorney-General v The Bank of West Africa [1965] GLR 245-SC Set the disputed thing down with the court and step out of the fight.
  3. Pivot #2 — the applicant's three proofs. The applicant must satisfy the court, by affidavit, that he claims no interest in the subject matter (other than charges/costs), is not in collusion with any claimant, and is willing to pay or transfer the subject matter into court. The applicant must show the court, on affidavit, three things: that he claims no interest in the thing itself (beyond his charges or costs), that he is not secretly working with any claimant, and that he is willing to pay or hand the thing into court. C.I. 47, Order 48 r.4 No interest · no collusion · willing to pay it into court — the three proofs of a true stakeholder.
  4. Pivot #3 — how you ask, and the defendant's stay. The application is by motion with notice to the claimants; the court orders them to appear and state, and maintain or relinquish, their claims. A defendant-applicant may apply any time after the writ, and the action is stayed until the interpleader is dealt with. You apply by motion on notice to the claimants, and the court orders them to come and either keep up or drop their claims. A defendant who applies can do so any time after the writ, and the main action is paused until the interpleader is sorted out. C.I. 47, Order 48 rr.2-3 Motion on notice — claimants appear and maintain-or-relinquish; a defendant-applicant gets a stay.
  5. File particulars in seven days, or abandon. A claimant who intends to maintain a claim must file particulars within seven days, with notice to the others; one who fails shall not be heard and is deemed to have abandoned the claim, unless the court extends time. A claimant who wants to keep up his claim must file the details within seven days and tell the others. One who does not will not be heard and is treated as having given up the claim, unless the court extends the time. C.I. 47, Order 48 r.6 Particulars within 7 days — or you are deemed to have abandoned your claim.
  6. Order on appearance; summary disposal. If the claimants appear, the court makes a claimant a defendant in an existing action, or states an issue between them and tries it (directing who is plaintiff/defendant); where the facts are agreed or the point is law, it may decide summarily, and direct how sale proceeds are applied. If the claimants turn up, the court can make one of them a defendant in the existing case, or frame the dispute between them as an issue and try it. Where the facts are agreed or it turns on law, the court can decide it quickly and say how any sale money is shared. C.I. 47, Order 48 rr.7-9 Made a defendant, or an issue stated and tried — or decided summarily on law/agreed facts.
  7. Pivot #4 — default bars the claimant. A claimant ordered to appear and maintain or relinquish who does not appear, or neglects/refuses to comply, may be declared forever barred against the applicant; but the order does not affect the claimants' rights as between themselves. A claimant who was ordered to appear and keep up or drop his claim, but does not show up or comply, can be shut out forever against the applicant. This does not affect the claimants' rights between themselves. C.I. 47, Order 48 r.10 Duck the contest and you are forever barred against the holder — but not as between the claimants.
  8. The Registrar's branch runs on the notice of claim. Where a Registrar has seized property in execution, a stranger claims it by giving notice to the Registrar; the execution creditor admits or disputes, and a disputed claim comes to court as a Registrar's interpleader. Where a Registrar has seized property in execution, an outsider claims it by giving notice to the Registrar. The execution creditor then admits or disputes it, and a disputed claim comes to court as a Registrar's interpleader. C.I. 47, Order 44 rr.12-13 (with Order 48 r.1(b)) · Manual ch.21 Notice of claim → creditor admits or disputes → disputed = Registrar's interpleader.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • A holder is sued by two claimants and tries to pick one.. a bank (or a warehouse, or an escrow agent) holds money/goods claimed by two parties and simply pays one, or defends one of the suits, hoping it chos… → Attorney-General v The Bank of West Africa
  • A bailiff seizes goods a stranger says are his.. the Registrar/bailiff seizes goods in execution, and a person other than the judgment debtor claims them;
  • An applicant interpleads but is not truly neutral, or skips a proof.. a holder applies for interpleader while secretly favouring one claimant, or while himself claiming an interest in the thing, or without offering to p…
  • A claimant is summoned but does not file particulars or appear.. the court orders the claimants to appear and maintain or relinquish, but one claimant files no particulars within the seven days, or fails to appear/…
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
22 Appeals The governing order ORDERS 51–55 C.I. 47 · O.51–55 · C.I. 19 · C.I. 16
Leading case Frimpong v Poku[1963] 2 GLR 1 — An appeal is a creature of statute: there is no inherent right of appeal, and a party invoking appellate jurisdiction m…
High-yield · examined 8× 8 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of the second chance. Orders 51, 52, 55 + the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) and the Court of Appeal / Supreme Court Rules (C.I. 19 / C.I. 16). An appeal is a creature of statute (Frimpong v Poku; Sandema-Nab). Interlocutory vs final turns on the nature of the order made, not the application (Opoku v Axes; ex parte State Housing Co) — and it sets the clock: interlocutory 21 days, no extension (XL Insurance); final 3 months (Tindana). Lodge a Notice of Appeal (decision · grounds · relief · parties); grounds concise, not argumentative (Hotel Majorie "Y" v Monyo). District-Court appeals (Order 51) are by rehearing; an appeal is not a stay. No jurisdiction? Judicial review / certiorari (Order 55, 6 months). Four exam pivots: creature of statute; interlocutory vs final; the Notice & grounds; time & routes. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. Pivot #1 — an appeal is a creature of statute. No inherent right of appeal; the right exists only where a statute confers it, and the appellant must obey the statutory conditions exactly. The Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) confers appellate jurisdiction; an appeal is interlocutory or final. There is no automatic right to appeal. The right exists only where a statute gives it, and you must follow that statute's conditions exactly. Every appeal is either interlocutory or final. Courts Act 1993 (Act 459) · Frimpong v Poku [1963] 2 GLR 1 · Sandema-Nab v Asangalisa & Others [1996-97] SCGLR 302 · Manual ch.22 No statute, no appeal — find the right, obey its conditions exactly.
  2. Pivot #2 — interlocutory vs final (the test is the order). An interlocutory decision does not finally dispose of the parties' rights; a final decision ends the case. The test is the nature of the ORDER made, not the application — and it controls the time limit. To tell an interlocutory decision from a final one, look at the order made, not the application that led to it. A final decision ends the case, while an interlocutory one does not. This is what sets the time limit. Opoku v Axes Co Ltd [2011] 2 SCGLR 50 · Republic v High Court (Fast Track Division) Accra; Ex parte State Housing Co Ltd (No 2) [2009] SCGLR 185 · Manual ch.22 Look at the order, not the application — the label sets the clock.
  3. Pivot #3 — the Notice of Appeal & grounds. Lodged by a Notice of Appeal stating the decision (whole/part), grounds, relief and parties affected. Grounds: concise, under distinct heads, not argumentative; misdirection/error of law needs particulars; no un-pleaded ground without leave. You start an appeal with a Notice of Appeal that states the decision (whole or part), the grounds, the relief wanted, and who is affected. The grounds must be short and to the point, not argumentative, and you cannot raise a brand-new ground without leave. C.I. 47 Order 51 rr.1-2 · Rule 8, C.I. 19 · Hotel Majorie "Y" Ltd v Monyo [2013-2014] 2 SCGLR 1342 Decision · grounds (concise, not argumentative) · relief · parties — no new ground without leave.
  4. Pivot #4 — time is strict. An interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeal must be filed within 21 days, with NO extension; a final appeal within 3 months. The deadlines are strict. An interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeal must be filed within 21 days, with no extension at all, and a final appeal within 3 months. Rule 9(1)(a) & Rule 20, C.I. 19 · XL Insurance Switzerland Co v Gemini Maritime Services & GPHA [2012] 1 SCGLR 658 · Tindana (No.1) v Chief of Defence Staff & A-G [2011] 2 SCGLR 724 21 days (interlocutory, no extension) / 3 months (final) — the clock is a guillotine.
  5. Extension of time — narrow and strict. An extension (where available) needs an affidavit of good and substantial reasons and grounds that prima facie show good cause; for District-Court appeals no application to extend after one month beyond the period. Where an extension is even possible, it is not for the asking. You must swear good and substantial reasons that show a real case, and for District Court appeals no extension can be sought more than a month after the time runs out. Rule 9(5), C.I. 19 · C.I. 47 Order 51 r.4 · Okudjeto & Others v Irani Brothers & Others [1975] 1 GLR 96 Extension is not for the asking — swear good cause; District Court: never after one month past time.
  6. District Court → High Court (Order 51). By way of rehearing, brought by notice; 3 months as of right against a final decision, but an interlocutory order needs leave within 14 days. An appeal does NOT operate as a stay of execution. An appeal from the District Court to the High Court is a fresh hearing, started by notice. You get 3 months as of right against a final decision, but an interlocutory order needs leave within 14 days. Filing an appeal does not, by itself, stop the judgment being enforced. C.I. 47 Order 51 rr.1, 3, 9, 14 · Courts Act 1993 (Act 459) s.21 · (r.9 as amended by C.I. 133) District Court appeal = by rehearing; interlocutory needs leave in 14 days; an appeal is not a stay.
  7. Judicial review (Order 55) — the supervisory route. Where a court/body acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, the remedy is judicial review: certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or quo warranto, to the High Court, within six months (certiorari: from the date of the impugned decision). Where a court or body acted with no power, or beyond its power, the answer is not an appeal but judicial review. You ask the High Court to step in (by certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or quo warranto) within six months. C.I. 47 Order 55 rr.1-3, 7 No jurisdiction? Don't appeal — quash it by certiorari (judicial review, 6 months).
  8. Appeals from Registrars/referees (Order 52). An appeal lies to a judge in chambers from a Registrar's order/decision, on notice within fourteen days; unless the court directs, it does not stay the proceedings. An appeal from a Registrar's order goes to a judge in chambers, on notice within 14 days. Unless the court says otherwise, it does not pause the proceedings. C.I. 47 Order 52 rr.1-2 Registrar's order? Appeal to a judge in chambers within 14 days.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • A party appeals where no statute gives the right, or to the wrong court.. a litigant lodges an appeal assuming a general right to a "second opinion," without identifying the statutory right or the correct appellate court. → Frimpong v Poku
  • A decision is mis-classified as final, and the appeal is filed late.. a party treats an interlocutory order as "final," files within three months, and resists the objection that it is out of time. → Opoku v Axes
  • A Notice of Appeal carries vague, argumentative grounds.. the grounds of appeal are sweeping and argumentative ("the judge was biased and the whole decision is unfair"), with no particulars, and counsel late… → Hotel Majorie "Y" Ltd v Monyo
  • A party "appeals" a decision made without jurisdiction, or assumes the appeal stays execution.. a tribunal acts beyond its powers and the loser files an appeal;
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
23 Moneylenders and Mortgage Actions The governing order ORDER 59 C.I. 47 · O.59
Leading case C.I. 47, Order 59 (Moneylenders and Mortgage Action)rr.1-5 — Order 59 governs two special actions: a moneylender's action (recovery of money lent, or enforcement of an agreement or…
Lower-frequency 8 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of the lender's lawsuit. Order 59 (Moneylenders and Mortgage Action, rr.1-5). A moneylender's action recovers money lent or enforces a loan agreement/security; a mortgage action claims payment, sale, a receiver, possession or release of the security. A moneylender's writ must be indorsed that the lender was licensed when the loan was made (r.2); the statement of claim must give the loan's full particulars (r.3). In both actions, no default judgment without leave of the court, on notice (rr.4-5). And being unlicensed does not void the loan: the court reopens unconscionable interest but the principal is recoverable (Ahenfie Cloth Sellers v Mensah; City & County Waste v AMA). Four exam pivots: the two actions; the licence indorsement; leave for default; non-compliance is not void. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. Pivot #1 — the two special actions. A moneylender's action recovers money lent, or enforces an agreement or security relating to money lent, brought by the lender or an assignee; a mortgage action claims any of: payment of secured monies, sale, a receiver, possession, or release of the security. These are two special kinds of case: a moneylender suing to get back money lent, and a mortgage action over property given as security for a debt. C.I. 47, Order 59 r.1 · Manual ch.23 Moneylender's = recover money lent / enforce the security; mortgage = pay · sell · receiver · possession · release.
  2. Pivot #2 — the licensed-moneylender indorsement. Before a writ beginning a moneylender's action is issued, it must be indorsed with a statement that the lender was licensed as a moneylender at the time of the loan or security. Before a moneylender can even start the case, the writ must carry a note that the lender was properly licensed when the loan was made. C.I. 47, Order 59 r.2 · Manual ch.23 No moneylender's writ without the licence indorsement — swear it on the writ.
  3. The statement-of-claim particulars. Every statement of claim must state the date of the loan, the amount lent, the interest rate, the repayment-contract date, that a signed note/memorandum exists (and when a copy reached the borrower), the amount repaid, the amount unpaid, when it became due, and the interest accrued unpaid. The claim must spell out the full money story: the date and amount lent, the interest, what was repaid, and what is still owing. C.I. 47, Order 59 r.3 Lay the loan bare in the claim — date, amount, rate, the signed note, repaid, unpaid, due, interest.
  4. Pivot #3 — no default judgment without leave. In both a moneylender's action and a mortgage action, judgment in default of appearance or defence shall not be entered except with the leave of the court, on notice to the defendant. Even if the borrower never answers, the lender cannot win automatically. The court's permission is needed first, after notice to the borrower. C.I. 47, Order 59 rr.4-5 Silence is not surrender — no default judgment without the court's leave, on notice.
  5. The court's scrutiny on the leave application. On the hearing (whether or not the defendant appears) the court may exercise its Moneylenders-Ordinance powers and give leave for the whole or part of the claim if satisfied notice was duly served. At that permission hearing the court checks the loan and only lets final judgment in for part or all of the claim if proper notice was served. C.I. 47, Order 59 r.4(3) · Moneylenders Ordinance (Cap. 176) The judge checks the loan before any judgment — whole, part, or further directions.
  6. Pivot #4 — unlicensed lending is not void. The absence of a licence does not automatically void the loan; the court reopens harsh and unconscionable interest and adjusts the rate, rather than striking the transaction. Lending without a licence does not wipe out the debt. Instead the court reopens harsh interest and fixes a fair rate. Ahenfie Cloth Sellers Association v Philomena Mensah (SC, Civil Appeal No. J4/7/2010, 21 July 2010) Unlicensed is not void — the court slashes unconscionable interest, not the debt.
  7. Recover the principal — no unjust enrichment. A borrower who has had and kept the loan proceeds must repay at least the principal at a reasonable rate; the court balances non-compliance against preventing the borrower's unjust enrichment. A borrower who took and kept the money must still repay the principal at a fair rate, so they are not unjustly enriched. City & County Waste Ltd v Accra Metropolitan Assembly [2007-08] SCGLR 409 The lender loses harsh interest, not the principal — the borrower can't keep free money.
  8. Currency note. Order 59 refers to the Moneylenders Ordinance (Cap. 176); the licensing regime for non-bank lending has since been modernised — state the rule as written and check the current licensing statute against present law. This Order points to an old ordinance; state the rule as written but check it against the current licensing law. C.I. 47, Order 59 r.1(2) · Moneylenders Ordinance (Cap. 176) Cap. 176 is the rule's reference — the current licensing statute should be checked against present law.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • A moneylender issues a writ with no licence indorsement.. a lender who lends as a business sues to recover money lent, but the writ carries no statement that he was licensed when the loan was made.
  • A statement of claim omits the loan particulars.. a moneylender's (or mortgage) statement of claim pleads only "the defendant owes GH¢X," without the date of the loan, the amount actually lent, the i…
  • A lender enters default judgment over the counter.. the borrower files no appearance or defence, and the lender enters judgment in default as of right, as in an ordinary action.
  • A borrower argues an unlicensed loan is void; or a lender claims unconscionable interest.. the lender was unlicensed, and the borrower argues the whole loan is void; → Ahenfie Cloth Sellers v Mensah
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
24 Probate and Administration The governing order ORDER 66 C.I. 47 · O.66
Leading case Re Asante; Asante v Owusu[1992-93] 2 GBR 460 — Where a person dies testate, the executors apply for a grant of probate;
High-yield · examined 9× 8 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of winding up a life's affairs. Order 66 + the Administration of Estates Act, 1961 (Act 63) and the Intestate Succession Law, 1985 (PNDCL 111). A will → the executors get probate; no will → letters of administration to the spouse → children → parents → customary successor (r.13; max four, r.14). A will but no usable executor → LA with the will annexed (r.7; In re Duncan). Dealing without a grant = the offence of intermeddling (r.3; In re Appau). A caveat stops a grant issuing without notice (r.11; 3 months, renewable). A probate action fights over the grant — grant / revocation / validity of a will (rr.32-33); an administration action is for the administration of the estate under the court's direction (r.44). Four exam pivots: probate vs LA; LA with will annexed; intermeddling; the caveat & contests. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. Pivot #1 — probate vs letters of administration. A valid will (testate) → executors apply for probate; no will (intestate) → letters of administration under PNDCL 111, to surviving spouse, then children, then parents, then the customary successor (r.13); no more than four administrators (r.14). If the dead person left a valid will, the named executors apply for probate. If there was no will, the court grants letters of administration, going to the surviving spouse first, then children, then parents, then the customary successor, with no more than four administrators. C.I. 47, Order 66 rr.1, 13-14 · Administration of Estates Act 1961 (Act 63) · Intestate Succession Law 1985 (PNDCL 111) · Re Asante; Asante v Owusu [1992-93] 2 GBR 460 · Manual ch.24 Will → probate to executors; no will → letters of admin: spouse → children → parents → customary successor (max 4).
  2. Pivot #2 — letters of administration with the will annexed. Where there is a will but no executor can act (none appointed, predeceased/died, renounced/refused, or void appointment), the grant is LA with the will annexed; the court may order a named executor to prove or renounce within 14 days, else his right is extinguished (r.7). Where there is a will but no executor can act (none was named, or they died, refused, or were void), the court grants administration with the will attached. It can order a named executor to prove the will or step aside within 14 days, or lose the right. C.I. 47, Order 66 r.7 · In re Duncan (Decd); Duncan v Duncan [1982-83] GLR 384 Will but no usable executor → LA with the will annexed; prove or renounce in 14 days, or lose the right.
  3. Order of priority where there is a will. The grant follows a ladder: the executor; then a specific legatee/devisee or creditor; then contingent legatees/devisees; then residuary; then the ultimate residuary; and finally a person who would take on intestacy (r.12). Where there is a will, the right to a grant follows a ladder. The executor comes first, then those left specific gifts or owed money, then other beneficiaries, and finally anyone who would inherit if there were no will. C.I. 47, Order 66 r.12 Executor first, then legatees/devisees/creditors down to whoever would take on intestacy.
  4. Pivot #3 — intermeddling. A person other than the named executor or court-appointed administrator who deals with a deceased's property bears an executor's liabilities AND commits the offence of intermeddling (fine / up to 2 years); even a named executor who does not apply for probate within 3 months intermeddles. Anyone who is not the proper executor or administrator and yet handles the dead person's property takes on an executor's liabilities and commits the crime of intermeddling (a fine or up to 2 years). Even a named executor who waits more than 3 months to apply is intermeddling. C.I. 47, Order 66 rr.3-4 · In re Appau (Decd); Appau v Ocansey [1993-94] 1 GLR 146 No grant, no hands on the estate — dealing without authority is the crime of intermeddling.
  5. Pivot #4 — the caveat. A person with (or claiming) an interest may file a caveat so that no grant issues without notice; filed before grant, it lasts three months and is renewable; the Registrar cannot seal a grant while it stands; the caveator is warned to file an affidavit of interest, then the court determines summarily or orders a writ within 14 days. Someone with an interest can file a caveat so that no grant is made without telling them first. It lasts three months and can be renewed, and the Registrar cannot seal a grant while it stands. The caveator is then warned to swear to their interest, and the court decides quickly or orders a full action within 14 days. C.I. 47, Order 66 r.11 A caveat = no grant without notice to me (3 months, renewable); warn → affidavit → summary or writ in 14 days.
  6. Notice of grant; preservation; testamentary papers. The court may preserve the estate or discover/preserve the will (r.2) and order production of/examination about testamentary papers (rr.5-6); no grant of letters of administration issues until 21-day notice is given (r.10). The court can step in early to protect the estate and to find and keep the will safe, and it can order people to produce or answer questions about will papers. No grant of administration is made until 21 days' notice has been given. C.I. 47, Order 66 rr.2, 5-6, 10 Preserve the estate, find the will, give 21 days notice before a grant of administration issues.
  7. Probate action. A contentious action for the grant of probate/LA, the revocation of a grant, or a judgment pronouncing for or against the validity of a will; commenced by writ (a revocation writ needs prior notice unless the grant is lodged). A fight over the grant itself, namely getting one, cancelling one, or deciding whether a will is valid, is called a probate action and is started by writ showing each party's interest. C.I. 47, Order 66 rr.32-33 Fight over the grant (grant / revocation / validity of a will) = a probate action, by writ.
  8. Administration action. An action for the administration of the estate (or execution of a will-trust) under the direction of the court; questions and reliefs — accounts, payment into court, directions to an executor/administrator — may be determined without a full administration. A fight over how the estate is being run is called an administration action, brought under the court's direction. The court can settle particular questions, like accounts or directions to an executor, without taking over the whole estate. C.I. 47, Order 66 rr.44-45 Fight over the running of the estate = an administration action, under the court's direction.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • A relative deals with the estate before any grant.. a family member collects rents, sells stock or takes possession of a deceased's property before any grant of probate or letters of administration is… → In re Appau (Decd); Appau v Ocansey
  • A dispute over who may apply where there is no will.. on an intestacy, an uncle or customary successor claims the right to letters of administration ahead of the surviving spouse and children. → Re Asante; Asante v Owusu
  • A will exists but the named executor cannot act.. the will names an executor who has died, renounced, or the appointment is uncertain; → In re Duncan
  • A grant is challenged, or issues behind an interested person's back.. an interested relative fears a grant will issue to the wrong person;
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
25 Costs The governing order ORDERS 74 & 24 C.I. 47 · O.74 · O.24
Leading case Eid v Eid & Another[1979] GLR 290 — The award of costs is in the discretion of the court, which determines by whom, to whom and to what extent costs are pa…
High-yield · examined 3× 8 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of who pays. Order 74 (Costs) + Order 24 (Security for Costs). Costs are in the court's discretion — by whom, to whom, to what extent (r.1; Eid v Eid). Costs follow the event — the loser pays — unless the circumstances call for another order (r.5). Costs are compensatory, not punitive: reasonable expenses, court fees and the lawyer's fee (r.2(3)); the factors are expenses · court fees · length/complexity · conduct · prior orders (r.2(4)); fixed summarily or by taxation (r.2(5)-(6)). Some costs come without an order (r.4). And security for costs (O.24): a defendant may make a plaintiff who is resident abroad, nominal, or elusive give security — default → dismissal. Four exam pivots: discretion; follow the event; compensatory + factors; security for costs. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. Pivot #1 — costs are in the court's discretion. Subject to Order 74, the costs of and incidental to proceedings are at the discretion of the court, which has full power to determine by whom and to what extent costs are paid; it may direct taxation or a sum in lieu. Who pays the legal costs, and how much, is up to the court. It can fix a sum or send it for detailed assessment. C.I. 47, Order 74 r.1 · Eid v Eid & Another [1979] GLR 290 · Manual ch.25 Costs are discretionary — the court decides by whom, to whom, to what extent.
  2. Pivot #2 — costs follow the event. Where the court orders costs it shall order them to follow the event (the loser pays the winner), except where the circumstances call for some other order; no party recovers costs except under an order (save where the Rules give costs without one). As a rule the loser pays the winner's costs, unless the situation calls for a different order. Nobody gets costs without an order. C.I. 47, Order 74 r.5 The loser pays the winner — unless the circumstances call for another order.
  3. Pivot #3 — compensatory, not punitive. An award of costs is ordinarily designed to compensate the successful party for reasonable expenses and court fees and to provide reasonable remuneration for that party's lawyer — not to punish the loser. Costs are meant to pay back the winner's reasonable expenses and lawyer's fee, not to punish the loser. C.I. 47, Order 74 r.2(3) · Manual ch.25 Costs compensate, they don't punish — reasonable expenses, court fees & the lawyer's fee.
  4. The assessment factors. In fixing the amount the court may weigh: reasonable expenses (incl. travel); court fees paid; the length and complexity of the proceedings; the conduct of the parties and lawyers; and any previous costs order. In fixing the amount the court weighs things like the reasonable expenses, court fees, how long and complex the case was, and how the parties behaved. C.I. 47, Order 74 r.2(4) Weigh expenses · court fees · length/complexity · conduct · prior orders.
  5. Summary determination or taxation. When costs are ordered, the amount should, if practicable, be summarily determined at judgment and stated in the order; if impracticable, the costs are settled on taxation by the court or a taxing officer. The amount should be settled there and then at judgment if possible; if not, it is worked out later on a detailed assessment (taxation). C.I. 47, Order 74 r.2(5)-(6) Fix it summarily at judgment if you can — otherwise send the bill to taxation.
  6. Costs without an order. In defined cases a party gets costs without an order — a defendant who pays a liquidated demand in the appearance time, a plaintiff's discontinuance/withdrawal, or acceptance of money paid into court; unpaid 7 days after assessment, the party may sign judgment. In a few set situations a party gets costs automatically, for example where a defendant pays up in time or the plaintiff drops the case. C.I. 47, Order 74 r.4 Some costs come automatically — liquidated demand paid, discontinuance, money paid in; sign judgment if unpaid in 7 days.
  7. Pivot #4 — security for costs. On a defendant's application the court may order the plaintiff to give security for costs where the plaintiff is resident abroad, a nominal plaintiff who may not pay, has not/incorrectly stated his address, or changed his address to evade the litigation. The court can make a plaintiff put up money in advance to cover costs, for example where the plaintiff lives abroad or hides their address. C.I. 47, Order 24 r.1 Make a shaky plaintiff pay in first — resident abroad / nominal / address hidden / address changed to evade.
  8. Security for costs — default. Where the plaintiff defaults in giving the security required by an order, the court may, on the defendant's application, dismiss the cause or matter. If the plaintiff fails to put up that security as ordered, the court can throw the whole case out. C.I. 47, Order 24 r.2 No security given → the action is dismissed.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • A winner assumes costs are automatic, or a full indemnity.. a successful party demands all his legal expenses from the loser as of right, treating a costs order as a full indemnity or a penalty on the loser. → Eid v Eid
  • The loser argues he should not pay because he had a point.. the losing party resists any costs order;
  • A party expects costs only by a formal order, or wrongly so.. a defendant pays a liquidated demand within the time for appearance, or a plaintiff discontinues, and a party is unsure whether costs require a court…
  • A defendant is sued by a plaintiff resident abroad or with a hidden address.. a defendant fears that, if he wins, he will not recover his costs from a plaintiff who lives overseas, is a front for another, or has given no/false…
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
26 Time The governing order ORDER 80 C.I. 47 · O.80 · NRCD 54
Leading case Okudjeto & Others v Irani Brothers & Others[1975] 1 GLR 96 — Order 80 governs the reckoning of procedural time: a period after/from a date begins immediately after that date, a per…
High-yield · examined 1× 8 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of the calendar that governs every step. Order 80 (Time — the whole Order is rr.1-5) + the Limitation Act, 1972 (NRCD 54). A period after/from a date begins the day after; a period before a date ends the day before (r.1(2)-(3)); clear days must actually intervene (r.1(4)); a period of seven days or less skips Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays (r.1(5)). Vacations are excluded for serving/filing/amending pleadings (r.2); a deadline on a closed-registry day is in time the next open day (r.3). The court may extend or reduce time — even after expiry — on just terms (r.4(1)-(2)); pleadings time by written consent with no order (r.4(3)) — but enlargement is a discretion on meritorious grounds, not a licence to delay. "Month" = calendar month (r.5). And keep two clocks apart: Order 80 (procedural time) vs the Limitation Act (whether the action can be brought at all). Four exam pivots: reckoning; vacations & closed days; extension/reduction; procedural time vs limitation. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. Pivot #1 — when a period begins and ends. A period to be done after/from a date begins immediately after that date (the date is not counted); a period to be done before a date ends immediately before that date. A time limit counted after a date starts the day after (the date itself is not counted); a limit to act before a date ends just before it. C.I. 47, Order 80 r.1(2)-(3) · Manual ch.26 After a date → start the day after; before a date → end the day before.
  2. Clear days. Where a number of clear days is required before or after a date, at least that number of days must actually intervene between the act and the date — count neither end. Clear days means a full count, leaving out both the start day and the end day. C.I. 47, Order 80 r.1(4) Clear days must truly sit between — count neither end.
  3. Pivot #1 (cont.) — short periods skip weekends/holidays. Where the period is seven days or less and would include a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, that day is excluded from the count (longer periods run continuously). For a short deadline of seven days or less, any Saturday, Sunday or holiday in the middle is not counted (long ones run straight through). C.I. 47, Order 80 r.1(5) A sprint of 7 days or less skips Saturdays, Sundays & public holidays.
  4. Pivot #2 — vacations are excluded for pleadings. Unless the court directs otherwise, the times of the vacations are excluded in reckoning any period for serving, filing or amending a pleading. Court vacation periods do not count when working out the time to serve, file or amend a pleading. C.I. 47, Order 80 r.2 · Manual ch.26 The vacation freezes the pleadings clock.
  5. The next-open-day rule. Where the time to do an act at the court office expires on a day the office is closed, the act is in time if done on the next day the office is open. If your deadline at the court office falls on a day it is closed, you are still in time if you act the next day it opens. C.I. 47, Order 80 r.3 Deadline on a shut registry → in time the next open day.
  6. Pivot #3 — extension or reduction of time. The court may, on just terms, extend or reduce any period — and may extend even after the period has expired. But enlargement is a discretion on meritorious grounds, not a licence to delay. The court can stretch or shorten any time limit on fair terms, and can even extend after the time has run out, but only for good reason, not to excuse mere delay. C.I. 47, Order 80 r.4(1)-(2) · Manual ch.26 The court can add time even after the buzzer — but only on a good reason.
  7. Extension by written consent. Time to serve, file or amend a pleading or other document may be extended by consent given in writing, without any order of the court. Time to serve, file or amend a document can be extended by written agreement of the parties, with no need to go to court. C.I. 47, Order 80 r.4(3) Pleadings time: agree it in writing — no order needed.
  8. Pivot #4 — "month" = calendar month; two clocks. "Month" means a calendar month (r.5). And keep Order 80 (procedural time, extendable) apart from the Limitation Act (NRCD 54) — whether the action can be brought at all; a statute-barred claim cannot be revived by extending procedural time. A month means a calendar month. And keep two clocks apart: procedural time (extendable) is different from the Limitation Act deadline, which decides whether the case can be brought at all. C.I. 47, Order 80 r.5 · Limitation Act, 1972 (NRCD 54) "Month" = calendar month; don't confuse the case-step clock with the limitation clock.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • A party miscounts a deadline.. a rule gives "14 days after service" or "not less than three clear days before the hearing," and a party counts the reference date itself, or counts…
  • A pleadings deadline appears to fall in the vacation or on a closed day.. time to file or amend a pleading runs across the long vacation, or a filing deadline lands on a day the registry is shut.
  • A party has missed a time-limit and wants relief.. a party files late, or seeks to act after the prescribed period has expired, and asks the court for more time;
  • A late claimant asks the court to "extend time" to sue.. a claim is brought after the limitation period has run, and the claimant argues the court can simply enlarge time under the rules, or treats "one mon…
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
27 Non-Compliance with the Rules The governing order ORDERS 81–82 C.I. 47 · O.81 · O.82
Leading case Republic v High Court (Accra); Ex parte Allgate Co Ltd (Amalgamated Bank Ltd, Interested Party)[2007-2008] 2 SCGLR 1041 — Non-compliance with the Rules of Court (time, place, manner, form or content) is an irregularity that does not nullify…
Moderate frequency 9 rules
The chapter in one lineOf roots and branches: the distilled law of the slip that doesn't sink the case. Order 81 (Effect of Non-Compliance, rr.1-2) + Order 82 (Supplementary & Miscellaneous, rr.1-5). A breach of an ordinary rule of court (time, place, manner, form or content) is a branch — an irregularity, not a nullity; it does not void the proceedings (r.1(1); Ex parte Allgate [2007-2008] 2 SCGLR 1041, which even deleted the enacted text's stray "not"; Friesland Frico Domo [2012] 1 SCGLR 41 — ordinary meaning, void/voidable gone). The court may set aside, or amend and make a just order, on terms as to costs — even after judgment (r.1(2); Standard Bank v NIB). Object by motion stating grounds, within a reasonable time and before any fresh step after knowledge (r.2) — else waived. But four roots cannot be cured — a breach of the Constitution · a statute (not the Rules) · natural justice · jurisdiction (Boakye v Tutuyehene [2007-2008] 2 SCGLR 970) — cut one and the tree falls (nullity; Mosi v Bagyina). Order 82 fills the gaps and is the Rules' dictionary. Every line has an "In plain words —" restatement. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. The old world — L.N. 140A, Order 70 r.1 (1954-2004). Non-compliance did not void proceedings "unless the Court or a Judge shall so direct" — the judge kept a discretion to declare void or to save, with no statutory test, so the courts built the "goes to the root / fouls the springs" test (Amoakoh v Hansen). Under the old rules the judge could either kill or fix a case for a broken rule, and he made up his own dividing line, which made outcomes unpredictable. L.N. 140A, Order 70 r.1 · Amoakoh v Hansen [1987-1988] 2 GLR 26 @ 37 The old judge could still pronounce a nullity — C.I. 47 took that power away.
  2. Pivot #1 — irregularity, not nullity. A failure to comply with the Rules (time, place, manner, form or content, or otherwise) is treated as an irregularity and shall not nullify the proceedings, any step, or any document, judgment or order. (The enacted text's stray "not" was judicially deleted in Ex parte Allgate; Friesland Frico Domo: give the Order its ordinary meaning — the void/voidable distinction is gone.) Breaking a court rule is only ever a fixable slip now, never an automatic death; read the rule in its corrected form. C.I. 47, Order 81 r.1(1) · Republic v High Court (Accra); Ex parte Allgate Co Ltd [2007-2008] 2 SCGLR 1041 · Friesland Frico Domo v Dachel [2012] 1 SCGLR 41 · Manual ch.27 Break a branch, not a root — an irregularity, not a nullity; the case lives.
  3. Pivot #2 — cure or set aside, on terms. On the ground of the failure, and on just terms as to costs, the court may set aside (wholly or in part) the proceedings/step/document, or allow amendments and make such order as it considers just — a reach that extends even after judgment (Standard Bank v NIB). The judge either cancels the faulty step or lets you correct it, and usually makes the careless party pay the costs. C.I. 47, Order 81 r.1(2) · Standard Bank Offshore Trust Co Ltd v NIB, Civil Appeal No. J4/63/2016 [2017] The court either strikes the step or saves it with a fix — and makes you pay the costs.
  4. Pivot #3 — object by motion, in time, before any fresh step. Set-aside is by motion stating the grounds (r.2(1)); and no application is allowed unless made within a reasonable time and the party has taken no further step after knowledge of the irregularity (r.2(2)). Complain in a formal motion, spell out what was wrong, do it quickly, and do it before doing anything else in the case. C.I. 47, Order 81 r.2 Move by motion, move quickly, and don't take a fresh step — or you waive it.
  5. The waiver in action. A party who, knowing of an irregularity, takes a further step in the proceedings is treated as having waived the right to complain of it (the appearance-waives-irregular-service idea, generalised; Boakye v Tutuyehene / Ankumah). Carry on with the case as if all is well, and the law treats you as having forgiven the slip. C.I. 47, Order 81 r.2(2) · Boakye v Tutuyehene · Ankumah v City Investment Co Ltd [2007-2008] 2 SCGLR Carry on as if all is well, and you've forgiven the slip.
  6. Pivot #4 — what Order 81 cannot cure (the roots). The irregularity power does not save a breach of the Constitution, of a statute other than the Rules, of natural justice, or anything going to jurisdiction; such a default nullifies (e.g. a Matrimonial-Causes action begun by writ, not petition). Four deep mistakes (a breach of the Constitution, of a real statute, of basic fairness, or of the court's power to hear the case) kill the case outright, with no cure. Ex parte Allgate [2007-2008] 2 SCGLR 1041 (Date-Bah JSC) · Boakye v Tutuyehene [2007-2008] 2 SCGLR 970 Constitution · statute · natural justice · jurisdiction — cut a root and the tree falls.
  7. Nullity vs irregularity. A nullity is void and may be set aside at any time, even by the court of its own motion; an irregularity is valid and binding until the affected party applies to set it aside. A void case can be struck out any time, even by the judge alone; a fixable slip stands until someone objects properly and on time. Republic v High Court (Accra); Ex parte Allgate Co Ltd · Mosi v Bagyina [1963] 1 GLR 337 @ 342 · Manual ch.27 Void can be struck anytime; irregular stands until someone properly objects.
  8. Order 82 — matters not provided for. Where the Rules make no provision for a matter of procedure, the practice for the time being in force in any common-law country may, where convenient, be applied; Schedule forms are used with modifications. If our Rules are silent, the court borrows the settled practice of any common-law country where it makes sense. C.I. 47, Order 82 rr.1-2 Rules silent? Borrow common-law practice where convenient.
  9. Order 82 — interpretation. The Rules define their key terms: "the Court" (High Court / a Judge, and the Circuit Court in civil matters), "judgment" (any order, ruling or decree), "interlocutory decision", "pleading", "writ"; and "signature" includes a thumbprint and a mark. The last Order is the Rules' dictionary, and it lets a thumbprint or mark count as a signature, so a non-writer can still sign. C.I. 47, Order 82 r.3 The Rules' dictionary — and a signature can be a thumbprint or a mark.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • A party demands a case be thrown out for a procedural slip.. a process is filed in the wrong form, or a step is taken out of time or manner, and the opponent argues the whole proceedings are void. → Ex parte Allgate
  • A party sits on an irregularity, then tries to set it aside late.. a litigant knew of the opponent's irregular step but took further steps (filed a defence, contested the merits) and only months later applies to set… → Boakye v Tutuyehene
  • A breach of a statute, the Constitution, natural justice or jurisdiction is dressed up as a mere irregularity.. a matrimonial action is begun by writ instead of the statutorily required petition, or a step is taken that the court had no jurisdiction to entertai… → Ex parte Allgate
  • The Rules are silent on a point, or a word in the Rules is disputed.. a procedural situation arises for which C.I.
Civil Procedure · Rule Spine
28 Election Petitions The governing order PETITION Const. arts 64/99 · PNDCL 284 · C.I. 16/99
Leading case In re Parliamentary Election for Wulensi Constituency; Zakaria v Nyimakan[2003-2004] SCGLR 1 — Election petitions are a specialised statute-bound procedure: parliamentary petitions are brought in the High Court (PN…
High-yield · examined 3× 8 rules
The chapter in one lineThe distilled law of the procedure where the clock is king. 1992 Constitution arts 64 & 99 · Representation of the People Act, 1992 (PNDCL 284) ss.16-18 · Presidential Election Act, 1992 (PNDCL 285) · Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules (C.I. 74; later C.I. 99). A parliamentary petition is brought in the High Court (s.16), with appeal to the Court of Appeal only — no SC appeal (art 99; Zakaria v Nyimakan); presented within 21 days of the Gazette publication of the result (s.18). A corrupt-practice petition runs 21 days from the payment (s.18(1)) — but the result must be declared first (Ex parte Hawa Yakubu). No extension after 21 days (s.18(3)); capacity under s.17. A presidential petition goes to the Supreme Court, 21 days from the declaration (art 64). Statute-fixed, so strict compliance — no Order 81 mercy. Four pivots: two fora; the 21-day clock; corrupt practice but results first; strict & statute-bound. Built for 5:45am.
Self-test — tick one per pass: know it shaky don't know yet
  1. Pivot #1 — parliamentary petition → High Court. A parliamentary election result is challenged by petition, and the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine it. A challenge to a parliamentary election result is brought as a petition, and the High Court hears it. Representation of the People Act, 1992 (PNDCL 284) s.16 · Manual ch.28 Challenge an MP's seat? Start by petition in the High Court.
  2. Pivot #1 (cont.) — appeal to the Court of Appeal only. An appeal from the High Court lies to the Court of Appeal, whose decision is final; there is no further appeal to the Supreme Court. From the High Court the appeal goes only as far as the Court of Appeal, whose word is final; the Supreme Court is not involved. 1992 Constitution art 99 · In re Parliamentary Election for Wulensi Constituency; Zakaria v Nyimakan [2003-2004] SCGLR 1 The Court of Appeal has the last word on an MP's seat — no SC appeal.
  3. Pivot #2 — the 21-day window. A parliamentary petition must be presented within 21 days after the date of publication in the Gazette of the result of the election. A parliamentary petition must be filed within 21 days of the result being published in the Gazette. PNDCL 284 s.18 · Ex parte Asare [2009] SCGLR 460 · Ex parte Collins Dauda [2009] SCGLR 447 21 days, counted from the Gazette publication of the result.
  4. Corrupt practice — but results first. A corrupt-practice petition (a specific payment) may be presented within 21 days after the alleged payment; but the result must first have been declared, even for corrupt practice. A corrupt-practice petition can be filed within 21 days of the alleged payment, but the result must already be declared. PNDCL 284 s.18(1) · Republic v High Court, Bolgatanga; Ex parte Hawa Yakubu [2001-2002] 1 GLR 311 Corruption: 21 days from the payment — but only after the result is declared.
  5. Pivot #2 (cont.) — no extension of time. There shall be no extension of time after the expiration of the 21 days. Once the 21 days are up, the court cannot give you any more time, full stop. PNDCL 284 s.18(3) When the 21 days run out, no judge can turn the hourglass over.
  6. Capacity to petition. Only a person within the statutory categories (such as a candidate or a voter entitled to vote at the election) may present a parliamentary election petition. Only certain people, such as a candidate or a voter in that election, are allowed to bring the petition. PNDCL 284 s.17 A petition by the wrong person is no petition — check capacity first.
  7. Pivot #3 — presidential petition → Supreme Court. A presidential election is challenged by petition in the Supreme Court within 21 days after the declaration of the result; the petitioner need not wait for the Gazette. A presidential election is challenged in the Supreme Court within 21 days of the result being declared, with no need to wait for the Gazette. 1992 Constitution art 64 · Presidential Election Act, 1992 (PNDCL 285) s.5 · C.I. 74 rr.68 & 68A (later C.I. 99) Challenge a President? Straight to the Supreme Court, 21 days from declaration.
  8. Pivot #4 — a strict, statute-bound procedure. An election petition is commenced by petition, in the prescribed forum, by a person with capacity, within a fixed, non-extendable time; the mode and deadline are fixed by statute and the Constitution, so strict compliance is required and a failure is not a curable irregularity. An election petition must follow the exact form, forum and deadline set by statute, and any slip cannot be fixed; strict compliance is required. 1992 Constitution arts 64/99 · PNDCL 284 ss.16-18 · cf. C.I. 47 Order 81 Right court, form, person, time — statute-fixed, so no Order 81 mercy.

Exam triggers — when you see this in a question, reach for this

  • A party files an election petition in the wrong court, or expects an appeal to the Supreme Court.. a defeated parliamentary candidate files in the Supreme Court, or expects to appeal a parliamentary petition all the way up; → Zakaria v Nyimakan
  • A petition is presented late, and a party asks for an extension.. a strong petition is presented on day 23, or a party seeks the court's indulgence to extend the time.
  • A corrupt-practice petition, or one filed before the result is declared.. a candidate alleges a corrupt payment and is unsure when the clock runs; → Ex parte Hawa Yakubu
  • A petition is brought by a person without standing, or a defect is dressed up as a mere irregularity.. a petition is presented by someone outside the statutory categories, or a party argues that a defect in the petition can be cured under Order 81.