BY COURT: R U L I N G
1. This Court heard the motion on notice for an Order setting aside the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim.
Firstly, it has been contended that the Plaintiffs failed to provide their occupational and residential addresses as required by the rules of procedure in (ORDER 2 Rule 5(1) of C.I. 47.
Secondly it has been contended that they failed to provide their T.I.N. number in breach Act 915 [Section 11(2) (a) and (b) specifically].
Thirdly public policy reason was given as a reason why this court must ensure compliance with the law by the Plaintiffs.
What is offered in rebuttal is found in two affidavits the first is the affidavit in opposition filed on 20-11-2018 and the second filed on 11-122018.
In the first difficulties faced by plaintiffs in supplying the addresses was canvassed, it was argued that the houses are unnumbered because, the Municipal Authority has failed to do so. And on the T.I.N. – numbers it was contended that, Act 915, should not …