[2017]DLCA8034 • April 12, 2017 • Court of Appeal
KWADWO DANKWA & ORS vs. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI LTD (FORMALLY ASHANTI GOLDFIELDS CO. LTD) - OBUASI
In March 2011, four named individuals filed a motion ex parte on behalf of 253 applicants seeking extension of time to commence an action for recovery of due salaries from 1994 to 2001 against AngloGold Ashanti Ltd. The motion was granted by Justice Azumah. Subsequently, the appellants commenced a writ action against the respondent. The respondent challenged the suit as statute barred and filed applications to set aside the extension of time and dismiss the suit. The matter involved procedural disputes over jurisdiction and the proper mode of commencing proceedings, as well as substantive issues regarding the applicability of the Limitations Act to the appellants' claims.
read moreTORKORNOO (MRS), J.A. This appeal has much to teach us about the importance of using the proper procedure when cases are presented in court. Order 2 Rule 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 CI 47 directs that all actions must be commenced by Writ of Summons. It reads: Commencement of proceedings 2. Subject to any existing enactment to the contrary, all civil proceedings shall be commenced by the filing of a writ of summons. Order 19 rule 1 (2) also provides that every application in pending proceedings shall be made by motion. The exception to and fusion of these two modes of proceeding is created in Order 19 rule 1 (2) which provides that: (2) Proceedings by which an application is to be made to the court or a judge of the court under any enactment shall be initiated by motion and where an enactment provides that an application shall be made by some other means, an application by motion shall be deemed to satisfy the provision of the enactment as to the making...