Ghana School of Law PLC: Civil Procedure (GLC) common mistakes
Ghana School of Law PLC: Civil Procedure (GLC) · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Filing a statement of claim that pleads bare legal conclusions (e.g. 'the defendant is liable in negligence') without the material facts-dates, parties' conduct, the loss suffered-and then resisting an application to strike out or amend by arguing the facts will emerge at trial.
Candidates memorize the forms in the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) and treat the indorsement on the writ as sufficient pleading; they confuse the concise nature of the indorsement with the requirement under Order 11 that the statement of claim contain the material facts on which the claim relies, so they never practise converting a fact pattern into numbered paragraphs.
What to do instead
Before writing any pleading, draft a private 'fact grid' listing every element of the cause of action and the specific fact proving it, then convert each row into a numbered paragraph stating facts, not law or evidence. Practise on past fact patterns: write the statement of claim, then apply Order 11 r.18 (striking out) to your own draft and amend anything that would fail.
Issuing a writ in the High Court without first checking the statutory jurisdictional limits and the exclusive-jurisdiction rules-e.g. suing on a small contract debt in the High Court, or bringing land title claims in the wrong forum-and then trying to cure it by amendment after the defendant raises it.
Candidates learn jurisdiction as an abstract topic (superior courts, inferior courts, territoriality) but never connect it to the concrete monetary and subject-matter limits in the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) and the case law on when jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent or waiver, so they treat venue and forum as interchangeable.
What to do instead
Build a one-page jurisdiction checklist: (1) subject matter, (2) monetary limit for the court chosen, (3) territorial connection of defendant or cause of action, (4) any exclusive statutory forum. Apply it to every problem question before identifying the writ; state in your answer why the chosen court has jurisdiction and what would happen if it did not.
Omitting a necessary party or misjoining a party (suing a partnership in its firm name where the rules require otherwise, failing to join a person whose interest would be affected, or joining a party with no direct interest) and only discovering the defect when the opponent applies to strike out for misjoinder or non-joinder.
Candidates treat joinder as a memory test on Order 4 of C.I. 47 rather than a test of who is affected by the relief sought; they also forget that non-joinder of a necessary party can be raised at any stage and may render the proceedings defective, so they do not check the relief claimed against the list of parties.
What to do instead
After settling the reliefs sought, write out who must be bound by the order and who must be heard before it is made; compare that list with the parties named. Memorize the distinction between necessary and proper parties and the procedure for adding or substituting parties, and always address in the answer whether amendment or a fresh action is the correct cure.
Treating service as a formality: assuming a writ is validly served because it was left at an address, or because the defendant 'must have known', without addressing personal service, substituted service by order, service on a company at its registered office, or service outside the jurisdiction.
Candidates conflate knowledge of the proceedings with service in law and skip the specific modes and proofs in Orders 7 to 10 of C.I. 47; they also forget that default judgment depends on proof of service, so they argue the merits of the default judgment without first testing service.
What to do instead
For every service issue, answer in sequence: what mode does the rule require for this defendant; was that mode used; what is the prescribed proof (affidavit of service, acknowledgment, registered post); if personal service failed, was an order for substituted service obtained. Then state the consequence for default judgment. Practise drafting an affidavit of service and an application for substituted service.
Applying for default judgment or setting it aside without engaging the correct rule and the relevant conditions-e.g. seeking default judgment where the defendant has given notice of intention to defend, or seeking to set aside a regular default judgment without showing a defence on the merits and a satisfactory explanation for the default.
Candidates memorize the labels 'regular' and 'irregular' default judgments but not the procedural triggers in Order 13 and the principles governing setting aside, so they cannot tell which facts in a problem are decisive; they also overlook the time limits for entering appearance and defence.
What to do instead
Draw a decision tree: was the writ served; did the defendant enter appearance within the time; did the defendant file a defence within the time; if not, is the judgment regular. For a setting-aside application, list the two limbs (explanation for default and triable defence on the merits) and apply each fact in the problem to a limb. Practise with both regular and irregular judgments.
Drafting interlocutory applications and supporting affidavits that argue law, contain hearsay or conclusory statements, or fail to exhibit the documents relied on; and filing the motion without the accompanying statement of supporting facts or without regard to the mode of application required by the rules.
Candidates treat the affidavit as a narrative of the client's case rather than a statement of facts admissible under the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), and they do not practise the formal components of a motion paper (title, grounds, prayer, supporting affidavit, exhibits), so their drafts are structurally defective.
What to do instead
Use a fixed affidavit template: deponent's identity and competence, numbered facts within personal knowledge, exhibits marked and referenced, and a prayer matching the motion. Delete every sentence that states a legal conclusion or opinion. Before filing, check whether the rules require a motion on notice, a motion ex parte, or a petition, and confirm the supporting facts are complete.
Confusing summary judgment under Order 14 with judgment on admissions or disposal without full trial, and applying for summary judgment in a case that is not a claim for a debt or liquidated demand, or failing to show the defendant has no real prospect of success.
Candidates learn the three procedures as separate headings and never compare their scope, so in a problem they pick whichever label sounds closest; they also forget that summary judgment requires a specific class of claim and that the defendant's burden is to show a triable issue, not to prove the defence.
What to do instead
Make a comparison table of Order 14 summary judgment, Order 15 (admissions), and Order 16/Order 33-type disposal without trial: claim type, who applies, test applied, and effect. In any problem, first classify the claim, then select the procedure, then state the test and apply the facts to it.
Failing to observe the rules on enforcement-attempting execution without a certified copy of the judgment, executing against property exempt from attachment, or ignoring the procedure for garnishee, judgment debtor summons, and charging orders-and misstating the effect of a stay pending appeal.
Candidates study judgment and enforcement as a list of remedies and do not trace the statutory machinery in the Courts Act and C.I. 47; they also assume an appeal automatically suspends execution, which is not the general rule, so they advise wrongly on timing.
What to do instead
For each enforcement mode, learn the trigger document, the court that issues it, the property it reaches, and the protection for the debtor. Separately memorize the rule that an appeal does not operate as a stay unless the court orders one, and practise stating what an applicant must show to obtain a stay.
Missing appeal deadlines or appealing to the wrong court, and failing to distinguish appeal from review and from an application to set aside-e.g. asking the trial court to review a judgment on the merits when the proper route is appeal, or omitting the required notice and grounds of appeal.
Candidates memorize the courts hierarchy but not the statutory time limits and the jurisdictional dividing line between a court reviewing its own decision and an appellate court correcting it; they also overlook that grounds of appeal must be specific errors, not a re-argument of the case.
What to do instead
Build a table: decision type, court with appellate jurisdiction, time limit, required documents (notice of appeal, grounds), and whether leave is needed. Learn the narrow grounds for review (e.g. discovery of new matter, error apparent) and practise drafting three grounds of appeal that each identify a specific error of law or misdirection.
Treating costs as automatic to the winner and ignoring the court's discretion, the factors governing costs, taxation procedure, and the availability of legal aid; or treating alternative dispute resolution as a soft topic and failing to identify when the court may order or encourage settlement, reference to ADR, or case-management directions.
Candidates deprioritize costs, taxation, legal aid and ADR because they appear less doctrinal, so they cannot apply the discretion or describe the taxation process; they also do not connect case-management innovations to the procedural consequences (unless orders, sanctions, settlement conferences).
What to do instead
Learn the costs provision and the factors (conduct, success, party-and-party vs solicitor-client), the taxation steps, and the legal aid eligibility route. For ADR and case management, memorize the specific mechanisms available in Ghanaian practice and, in problem answers, state what the court may order, what happens on non-compliance, and how it affects the trial timetable.