SARKWA AND ANOTHER vs. AHUNAKU [1966]DLSC1748

Date	1966-01-31
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1966]DLSC1748

OLLENNU JSC

APALOO JSC

LASSEY J.S.C.

HAROLD DARKO FOR THE APPLICANTS.

C. F. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN SNR. FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1966]DLSC1748
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >SARKWA AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>AHUNAKU <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1966] GLR 244<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
14 MARCH 1966.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

HAROLD DARKO FOR THE APPLICANTS.<o:p></o:p>

C. F. HAYFRON-BENJAMIN, SNR. FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

OLLENNU, APALOO AND LASSEY JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF OLLENNU J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Ollennu
J.S.C. delivered the ruling of the court. In this application the court is
invited to review its order of 7 December 1965, dismissing an appeal on the
ground that the alleged appeal was not properly before it and the court was
therefore void of jurisdiction to entertain it. The judgment against which the
applicants sought to appeal is one given by the High Court in its appellate
jurisdiction. Section 8 (1), proviso (a) (i) of the Courts Act, 1960,1 which
sets out the jurisdiction of the court provides that:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">&nbsp;“an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from
a judgment of the High Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction on
any matter except a matter arising out of a criminal case—<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(i) Where
the High Court has affirmed the decision of the Court from which the appeal is
made to the High Court, by special leave of the High Court. . . “<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
undisputed interpretation of that provision of the Act is that unless special
leave of appeal is granted no appeal can be filed against a judgment of the
High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction and confirming a decision of the
court from which the appeal came to it, and if an appeal purports to have been
filed against such a judgment without special leave, the court should not have
jurisdiction to entertain it.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Now, one
of the main purposes of a review is to enable a court to correct an error
appearing on the face of a judgment given by it: see Swaniker v. Adotei Twi
II.2 A court cannot, therefore, entertain an application for review unless,
among other things, it is shown that there is an error on the face of its
judgment resulting from some cause or the other.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this
case there is no dispute <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(1) That the judgment of the High
Court against which the applicants sought to appeal is one given in the exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction, <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(2) That the judgment confirmed
the decision of the court from which the appeal came to the High Court, and <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(3) That special leave to appeal
was not obtained by the applicants before they purported to file their alleged
appeal. It cannot therefore be said that there is an error apparent in the
order of the court refusing to exercise jurisdiction; and counsel for the applicants
has not been able to allege or point out any matters which can disclose an
error inherent therein.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
however alleges that the procedure and manner in which the High Court dealt
with the appeal before it led the applicants and their legal advisers,
honestly, though erroneously, to assume that it was exercising original and not
appellate jurisdiction, and that therefore special leave to appeal is not a
condition precedent to appeal.<o:p></o:p>