[1972]DLCA2236 • June 12, 1972 • Court of Appeal
MENSAH AND OTHERS vs. ADU AND OTHERS
The case arose from a dispute over costs following a Supreme Court judgment which reversed a High Court decision. The Supreme Court judgment fixed costs payable by the respondents to the appellants, but an inconsistency appeared between the judgment and the formal order drawn up by the Registrar of the Supreme Court. The order included an additional provision that 'other costs in the court below to be taxed,' which was not in the judgment. The Registrar of the High Court, Cape Coast, taxed costs accordingly, leading to the respondents paying an amount of £G341 6s. 6d. under protest. The respondents claimed recovery of this sum, alleging it was paid under a mistake of fact as the Supreme Court had not intended to allow such taxation.
read moreThis appeal raises a short point, but important questions of general interest. The plaintiffs in this case were the respondents and co-respondents and the defendants were the appellants m the case entitled: “1. GEORGE MENSAH, 2. S. K. DABIE, 3. KOJO ADIYIA, all of Duayaw-Nkwanta, Plaintiffs-appellants v. 1. J. H. ADU alias NANA ADU KWABENA of the Presbyterian Primary School, Bekwai, 2. A. S. AKOM of Drumo Road, Duayaw-Nkwanta, Defendant-respondent NANA SAKYI AMANADO II, Omanhene of Duayaw-Nkwanta State Co-defendant-respondent.” On 22 March 1965, the Supreme Court at the time reversed the decision of the High Court, Cape Coast, in that case. The unanimous judgment of the court, read by Ollennu J.S.C. (as he then was) was concluded as follows (only the relevant portions are produced): “For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the court below is set aside including the order as to costs, any costs paid to be refunded . . ....