A.NARTEY TOKOLI & ORS vs. VALCO LIMITED

The applicants, who had earlier been parties to an appeal against VALCO Limited, brought a motion asking the Court of Appeal to review or vary its earlier judgment dated 27 January 2005. From the extracted text, their complaint was that the earlier judgment did not adequately cater for certain monetary and employment-related benefits, including matters touching interest and allowances allegedly due to workers who had been kept at home. The respondent opposed the application and argued that the motion was in substance an attempt to reopen the appeal rather than a proper review application. Portion indicated in the judgment: the record states that the application sought “a review of the decision of the court dated 27/01/05” and referred to complaints about “nonaward of interest” and benefits such as “food, beverage and inconveniences allowances.”

Counsel for the applicants of …………….. notice of motion for review on arguments contained in the said process as well as the ……………………………… affidavit says that the Respondent has filed an affidavit in …………………… Turn to rule 34 of C1 19 - the enabling legislations of the court rules states that “there are exceptional circumstances shown by the application and that in the interest of justice these should be a review of the decision of the court dated 27/01/05. …………. of the appeal that were disposed of and the demand by the applicants for a variation of the judgment of …………………. appeal. ………………………..: Counsel did you file a notice for …………………. of the judgment under rule 15(1) of C1 19? My Lord, we had ………………… appeal …………………… with a notice for …………………… of the filed it together with the statement of …………………………………...