JUDGMENT
SOWAH J.
In this appeal counsel for the appellants elected to argue only ground 1 (a) of the additional grounds of appeal, that is: “The local court had no jurisdiction to hear the case and consequently the trial was null and void.” Counsel submitted firstly that the writ of summons was issued by a person not a party to the action and referred the court to pages 3 and 4 of the record of appeal, where it appears that the application for the writ was made by one Baiden-Amissah who signed for the plaintiffs. Counsel contended that Baiden-Amissah not being a party to the suit was incompetent to issue out a writ of summons and therefore the whole trial was a nullity, the local court having no jurisdiction.
In support of counsel’s arguments counsel cited the case of Seawornu v. Gakor1(1) in which it was held, inter alia, that service of the writ of summons on a person not authorise by the court to be a legal representative was wrongful. Counsel further cited the case of Chief Yaw Damo…