DOLPHYNE vs. SPEEDLINE STEVEDORING CO LTD AND ANOTHER

JUDGMENT OF CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC Delivered the ruling of the court. The respondents herein have raised a preliminary objection to the present application and submit that “the application for leave is misconceived and must be dismissed in limine.” For the sake of clarity, the grounds of the objection are set out in extenso as follows: (i). “The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the Court of Appeal and the same was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16 April with ¢300,000 costs. (ii). The plaintiff having exhausted his right of appeal, so to speak, cannot invoke article 131(2) of the Constitution, 1992 and section 4(2) of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459). The plaintiff cannot have a second bite at the cherry: see Khoury v Mitchual [1989-90] 2 GLR 105, SC. (iii). There must be an end to litigation. Litigation cannot continue as long as litigants can change counsel. (iv). The plaintiff-applicant failed woefully ...