SERVICE OF COURT PROCESSES ON CORPORATE INSTITUTIONS.
Section 263(1) of the Companies Act, Act 179 states that a document may be served on a company by leaving it at, or sending it by post to, the registered office of the company, or the latest office registered by the Registrar as the registered address of the company.
Section 263(2) of Act 179 states that any document to be served by post on a company shall be posted in such time as to admit of its being delivered in due course of delivery within the time, if any, prescribed for the service thereof; and in proving service it shall be sufficient to prove that a letter containing such document was properly addressed prepaid and posted, whether or not by registered post.
Section 263(3) of Act 179 states that if a company has no registered office, service upon any director of the company or, if the company has no director or if no director can be traced in Ghana, upon any member of the company, shall be deemed good and effectual service upon such company, blonde hair https://nudecamshd.com.
A document is duly served on a company if left at its registered place of business or posted.
Section 263(4) of Act 179 states that if it shall be proved that any document was in fact received by the board of directors, managing director or secretary of a company such document shall be deemed to have been served on the company notwithstanding that service may not have been effected in accordance with the foregoing subsections of this section.
That is in so far as a document was received by the board of directors, managing director or secretary of a company, even though the provisions of section 263(1) (2) and (3) were not complied with in service of documents, service will be deemed to have been effected.
In Barclays Bank vrs Ghana Cable [1998-99] SCGLR, Acquah JSC held “ …………..as provided in section 263(4) of Act 179, once it is confirmed that the document for service has indeed been received by the board of directors or the managing director or secretary of the company the said document shall be deemed to have been properly served on the company, notwithstanding the fact that the manner in which the document got to such a recipient was not in line with any of the provisions in section 263(1)to (3).
The learned Justice also held “ thus although section 263(1) of Act 179 talks of ‘leaving it at ‘ the registered office or address of the company, the bailiff must obviously leave it with someone who is in a position to bring the document to the attention of the company……………….in Ghana, sexo casero one can take a cue from sections 263(3) and (4) of Act 179 and comfortably hold that a document left with a director or managing director or the secretary or a member of the company at the registered office or address should be sufficient service on the company within the expression ‘leaving it at’ in section 263(1) of Act 179”.
Order 7 rule 5(1) of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules C.I. 47 states that service of a document on a body corporate may, in cases for which provision is not otherwise made by any enactment, be effected by serving it on the chairman, president, or other head of the body, or on the managing director, secretary, treasurer or other similar officer.
Thus where an enactment makes provision for service of documents this rule may not apply. Instead the mode of service of documents as provided for in the enactment shall be applied. It presupposes that in effecting service all statutory modes of service must be strictly adhered to.
In Ghana Commercial Bank vrs Tabury [1977]1 G.L.R it was held per Sarkodee J “it seems to me therefore that even though N.R.C.D 115 is silent as to the person with whom the document or writ should be left, the proper thing to do is to serve somebody who can represent the bank or some other responsible officer. ……………………………………..in the case of a company if it’s in the normal course of a clerk’s business to accept processes served on his company then the position would be different. The important point is that the person served must be responsible and he must accept service in the normal course of his business.
In the cases of Societe General de Paris vrs Tramways Union Co. Ltd (1884) 14 Q.B.D. 424, CA and Alletson vrs Chichester (1875) L.R. 10 C.P. 319 it was held that the proper way, other than by post, to give notice to a company is to give it to its proper officers, or in such manner that it will be received by the company in the course of its business. Thus notice to a director or to the managing director acting as such will be sufficient so also will notice to the secretary.