JUDGEMENT
TORKORNOO, J. A:
The Defendants/Respondents (hereinafter referred to as Respondents) are a Metropolitan Assembly and its Chief Executive. The Appellants sued the Respondents on 25th June 2015 and served the writ on the same date. On 6th July 2015, eleven days after service of the Writ and Statement of Claim, the Respondents entered conditional appearance to the Writ. They then applied to set aside the writ and service of the writ on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the action.
In the supporting affidavit to the application to set aside the writ, the Respondents inter alia, averred in paragraphs 7 and 10 that
7.‘...1st defendant’s enabling statute provides avenues by which such entities may resolve any differences with 1st defendant and that omission to consult any state agency in carrying out development (sic) its plans confers no cause of action to plaintiffs against 1st defendant by way of the present suit’.
10. That a reading of the processes filed by…