INSPECTOR-PLASTICO MOULDS LTD
V.
ATICO LTD.

AMISSAH J.A.: The plaintiffs have sued the defendants on a bill of exchange. After the defendants appeared to the specially endorsed writ, the plaintiffs took out a summons for final judgment. Instead of the defendants showing cause against such application by affidavit, as is provided by Order 14, r. 3 (a) of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), they filed a defence to the claim and they appeared by counsel to argue their case for leave to defend. It is important, I think, that the rules be obeyed. In this case, however, no objection was taken to the course adopted by the defendants and they were heard on this motion as if the defence filed complied with the affidavit required of them by the rules. I therefore propose to ignore the technical breach of the rules for the purposes of this ruling. But that is not to be taken as saying that this court will take such a benevolent view of future breaches of the rules, even where no complaint is made about them…