Archer J. The plaintiffs by their solicitors issued a writ of summons accompanied by a statement of claim on 16 December 1967. The writ of summons was served on the defendant on 20 December 1967, and she entered appearance on the same day. Before the writ was served, the plaintiffs, on 19 December 1967 filed a motion on notice applying for an interim injunction against the defendant. When the motion came up for hearing, the defendant raised an objection to the procedure adopted by the plaintiffs because both the writ of summons and the motion for interim injunction were served together on her on the same day, 20 December 1967, whereas the plaintiffs had not first sought the leave of the court under the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), Order 52, r. 9 before serving the motion along with the writ.
The plaintiffs maintained that no such leave was required because their motion was filed under Order 50, r. 7 of L.N. 140A and no such leave was necessary. The pl…