KHOURY vs. KHOURY [1970]DLCA2122

Date	1970-12-07
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1970]DLCA2122

AZU CRABBE JA

LASSEY JA

ARCHER J.A.

J. REINDORF FOR THE APPLICANT

U.V. CAMPBELL FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1970]DLCA2122
																																						<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" >KHOURY <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>KHOURY <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL]<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[1971] 1 GLR 348<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:
7 DECEMBER 1970.<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">

J.
REINDORF FOR THE APPLICANT<o:p></o:p>

U.V.
CAMPBELL 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">

AZU CRABBE, LASSEY AND ARCHER JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE J.A<o:p></o:p>Azu
Crabbe J.A. delivered the ruling of the court. This is an application by the
plaintiff- appellant brought under rule 28 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1962
(L.I.218), for an order of the court —<o:p></o:p>(1) Calling
upon or directing the receiving appointed upon an order by the High Court, to
surrender forthwith to the plaintiff-appellant possession of such of the
property in dispute as had been adjudged the property of the
plaintiff-appellant; and (2) fixing a time limit within which the said receiver
shall comply with the rest of the orders made by this court in its judgment of
7 August 1970.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In an
affidavit filed by the defendant-respondent in opposition to the application,
an objection is taken to the jurisdiction of this court founded upon the
allegation that this is not an application contemplated by the Supreme Court
Rules, 1962. Rule 28 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1962 states: [His lordship
here read the provisions of the rule as set out in the headnote and continued:]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 14
October 1970, the plaintiff-appellant, who was victorious in his appeal from a
decision of the High Court in this case, made an application, similar to the
present one, to the High Court, but this was refused by Kingsley Nyinah J. In
his ruling the learned judge said:<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">“In the
peculiar circumstances of this matter, as it now stands, I am of the view that
it would not be just or convenient either to order the discharge of the
receiver and manager, or else to order that he hand over and surrender the
partnership properties to one or other of the parties herein. All this will be
done in due time, but not just yet. When that time comes it shall then be
decided who shall be entitled to take whatever is due.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
for the defendant — respondent, Mr. Campbell, has argued that before this court
can entertain an application under rule 28 of L.I 218, the applicant must show
that the repetition of his application before this court is permitted by some
enactment. Counsel referred us to a ruling of the Court of Appeal in Tormekpey
v. Ahiable, 27 January 1970, unreported; digested in (1970) C.C. 44 in which it
is said:<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">“It seems
to us that the present application is plainly misconceived. The applicant has
not indicated in his notice of motion the rule under which his application is
brought, but it is certainly not, and would not, be under rule 28 of the
Supreme Court Rules, 1962. The second application before the circuit court was
for an order to pay the judgment — debt ordered to be paid into court by
instalment. That application having been refused, the same application can be
repeated in this court if only it is authorise. An enactment is defined in
article 172 of the 1969 Constitution of Ghana as “an Act of Parliament or a
constitutional instrument or a statutory instrument or any provision of an Act
of Parliament or a constitutional instrument.” Counsel for the applicant has
not been able to refer us to any enactment which gives this court the
jurisdiction to entertain a repeated application for an order to pay a
judgment-debt ordered to be paid into court on instalment basis, after the same
had been refused by the lower court, and we ourselves have not been able to
find any such enactment.”<o:p></o:p>