LARTEY AND OTHERS vs. BAKU II AND OTHERS

JUDGMENT OF ANIN J.A. Anin J.A. delivered the ruling of the court. On 5 March 1979, we upheld the plaintiff-respondents’ counsel’s preliminary objection to the competency of the motion for leave to apply for the review of the judgment of the ordinary bench of the Court of Appeal by the full bench under section 3 (2) (a) of the Courts (Amendment) Decree, 1972 (N.R.C.D. 101), and after dismissing the motion, we reserved our reasons. We now give those reasons. The final judgment of the ordinary bench was delivered on 20 July 1977; and the instant application for leave for review was not filed until 31 January 1979—that is, after a lapse of one year and seven months. At the hearing of the motion, learned counsel for the respondents argued a preliminary objection that it was time-barred and ought consequently to be dismissed in limine. He cited in support the relevant rules of the Supreme Court Rules, 1970 (C.I. 13), which regulate the time limits for the lodging of...