MOBIL OIL S.L. LTD. v. TEXACO AF. LTD., 1964-66 ALR S.L. 133             s.c.

MOBIL OIL SIERRA LEONE LIMITED v. TEXACO AFRICA LIMITED and UNITED AFRICA COMPANY

SuPREME CouRT (Marke, J.): October 2nd, 1964

(Civil Case No. 260/64)                                                 5

[l] Civil Procedure-writ  of  summons-name of  party-incorrect  name no ground for setting aside writ: The omission of the word "Limited" in the name of a limited company which is a party to legal  proceed- ings is a misnomer if, in all the circumstances of the case and looking

at the document as a whole, a reasonable man is in no doubt as to                 10

whom that description refers to, because of the absence of another

entity to which the  description  might  refer. Such an omission  is not   a ground for setting aside a writ  of  summons  (page  134,  line  37- page 135, line 16).

1. Civil Procedure-writ of summons-name of party-when misnomer

crucial:  When  a company  is  misnamed  in legal  proceedings, the test                                                                                                                        15

as to whether a misnomer is so crucial as to cause  a writ  to  be  set aside for irregularity is the  attitude  of  a reasonable  recipient  of  such  a writ;  if,  in  all  the  circumstances  and  looking  at  the  document  as a whole, the recipient company knew that  it  was  intended  for  itself but that there was a mistake as to name, then this is a case of mere

misnomer,  which  can   be  cured   by  amendment,   but   if  the   recipient                                                                                                                        20

does not know for whom  it  was  intended,  in  particular  where  there  is another entity to whom the description might refer,  this  is  beyond the realm of curable misnomer (page 134, line 37-page 135, line 8).

1. Companies-name-name in litigation-incorrect name no ground for

setting aside  writ:  See [1] above.                                                                                                                        25

1. Companies-name-name in litigation-when misnomer crucial: See
   1. above.

The plaintiff company brought an action against the second de-

fendant company  (now  applicants)  during  which  the  applicants   30 moved to set aside the writ of summons.

In the writ of summons the applicant limited company was des­ cribed as the "United Africa Company" rather than by its  correct name of the "United Africa Company of Sierra Leone Limited."

There was no other entity to whom this description could refer.                35

The applicants thereupon applied to the  court  to have  the  writ set aside for irregularity. It was argued that the irregularity was material as there was no such person as the "United Africa Com­ pany" and that therefore there was no person before the court.

The plaintiffs resisted the application "upon the ground that no con- 40

fusion was caused by the misdirection.

133

 

THE AFRICAN LAW REPORTS

 

Cases referred to :

1. Davies v. Elsby Bros. Ltd., [1961] l W.L.R. 170; [1960] 3 All E.R.

612, dicta of Devlin, L.J. applied.

(2) Whittam v. W. J. Daniel & Co. Ltd., [1962] 1 Q.B. 271; [1961] 3 All

5           E.R. 796.

Barlatt for the applicants;

Luke for the plaintiffs.

MARKE, J.:

This is an application by the second defendant on a summons

to set aside the writ of summons herein and the service thereof for irregularity on the ground that they were not described on  the said writ of summons by their proper name.

15              Mr. Barlatt, who appeared for the applicants, in an affidavit sworn by him, stated in para. 6 thereof as follows: "The name 'United Africa Company' on the said  writ  of  summons  issued  and  served  herein is not the proper name of the 'United Africa Company  of  Sierra Leone  Limited,'  which  is  a  limited  liability  company incorporated

20 under the law of  Sierra  Leone."  Mr. Barlatt,  in his argument,  re­  ferred to the notes to 0.2, r.3 of the Rules of the  Supreme  Court which appear in the 1957 Annual  Practice, where  it is stated  that  if a defendant is misnamed, he would have a judgment against him for default  of  appearance  set  aside  for  irregularity.    Mr.  Barlatt  said

25  that  the irregularity  in  this  case  was  material  as  the  United Africa

Company, as such, was not a person and no person was therefore before the court.

Mr. Luke for the plaintiffs conceded that the proper name of the applicants was "United  Africa Company  of  Sierra  Leone  Limited,"

30        but  urged  that  as there was  no confusion  in  the  name  of  the   person

intended to be sued, the misnomer in this case  was  not  such  as would justify setting aside the writ.

A similar point came up in Davies v. Elsby Bros. Ltd. (1) in which Devlin,  L.J. prescribed  the  test  to  be applied  in cases  such  as the

35       present  in  these  terms  ([1961]  1  W.L.R.  at  176,  [1960]   3  All  E.R.

at 676):

" ... [T]he test must be: how would a reasonable person  re­  ceiving the document take it? If, in all the circumstances of the case  and  looking  at  the  document  as  a  whole,  he  would   say

40     .  .  .  'Of  course it  must  mean  me,  but  they  have got  my name

wrong,   then   there  is  a  case  of   mere   misnomer.     If,   on the

134

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

MOBIL  OIL  S.L. LTD.  v.  TEXACO  AF.  LTD,,  1964-66  ALR S.L. 133              s.c.

other hand, he would say : 'I  cannot  tell  from  the  document itself whether they mean me or not and I shall have to make inquiries,'  then  it  seems  to  me  that  one  is   getting   beyond the realm of misnomer.

One of  the factors which  must  operate  on the mind of the                                                                                                                     5

recipient of a document, and which operates in this case, is whether there is or is not another entity to whom the descrip­ tion on the writ might refer "

Further, in Whittam v. W. ].  Daniel  &  Co.  Ltd.  (2)  where  the  de­ fendants were sued as W. J. Daniel, a firm, and not in their proper 10

name, it was held that the omission of the word "Limited" was a mere misnomer. In all the circumstances of  the  case  there  was  no  doubt who it was that the plaintiff intended to sue, and secondly, the mere omission of the word "Limited" did not mean that no person was

sued and that, until that was corrected, there was no defendant to 15

the proceedings.

Applying the  test of  Devlin, L.J., there is not  the slightest  sugges­

tion that there is another entity to whom the description  "United Africa  Company"  could  apply.   Though  not  legally  correct, every

reasonable   person   in   Sierra   Leone   will   concede   that   the   words                                                                                                                              20

"United Africa Company" are used with reference to that company whose corporate name and style is "United  Africa  Company  of Sierra Leone Limited" and it has not been suggested in the affidavits filed in support of this application that there is any other entity in

Sierra  Leone  to  whom  the  words  "United   Africa  Company"  can                                                                                                                              25

reasonably refer.

The application  to set  aside  the writ  and  service  thereof  on the

ground  stated  in  the summons  fails  and  is hereby dismissed.     The applicants  are  to  pay  the  costs  of  the  plaintiffs,  which  are  to  be

taxed.                                                                                                                              30

Application dismissed.

 

 

35

 

 

 

40

 

 

135