C.F.A.O. vs. ZACCA [1970]DLHC2099

Date	1970-10-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1970]DLHC2099

ABBAN J.

H.V. A. FRANKLIN FOR THE APPLICANT.

J.E. QUASHIE-LDUN FOR THE RESPONDENT

[1970]DLHC2099
																																						<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" >C.F.A.O. <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ZACCA <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT,
ACCRA]<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] GLR 161<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:
30 October 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">

H.V. A.
FRANKLIN FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

J.E.
QUASHIE-LDUN 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">

ABBAN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ABBAN J.<o:p></o:p>In this
application, the defendant is asking for an order striking out the writ of
summons or dismissing the suit either under Order 25, r. 4 of the Supreme
[High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), or under the court’s
inherent jurisdiction on the ground that both the writ and the statement of
claim do not disclose any reasonable cause of action. The writ of summons
states as follows:<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">“The
Plaintiffs’ claim against the defendant is a declaration that until rules regulating
civil appeals to the Supreme Court have been made, the defendant is not
entitled to go into execution against the plaintiffs for the balance of the
judgment debt awarded to the defendant by the Court of Appeal in C.F.A.O. v.
Zacca. In the alternative, the plaintiffs claim against the defendant an order
that the defendant furnish good and sufficient security to the plaintiffs to
cover the whole of the said judgment debt and costs before the plaintiffs are
called upon to satisfy the said balance of the judgment debt.<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">And the
plaintiffs also claim an injunction restraining the defendant from going into
execution pending the hearing of the plaintiffs’ appeal by the Supreme Court or
until the defendant furnish a good and sufficient security to the plaintiffs to
cover the said judgment debt and costs.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>From the
pleadings and from the affidavits filed herein, the following facts are not in
dispute. That is, the plaintiffs sued one S. Zacca in the High Court, Kumasi,
suit No. D.C. 215/62 for certain sums of money alleged to be the balance of
instalments due on a hire-purchase price and cost of labour done and materials
alleged to have been sold to the said S. Zacca.<o:p></o:p>On the
application of the said S. Zacca, the present defendant-applicant was joined as
a third party to that quit. The defendant-applicant, as a third counterclaimed
for damages against the plaintiffs for unlawful seizure of the tractor by the
plaintiffs, the, tractor being the subject of the said hire-purchase agreement.
The High Court, Kumasi, heard the case and gave its judgment. Both the
plaintiffs and the defendant-applicant (as the third party) however appealed
against the said judgment of the High Court, Kumasi, to the then Court of Appeal.
The defendant-applicant’s main ground of appeal was against the damages awarded
as being inadequate. On 15 August 1969, the Court of Appeal in its judgment
(Zacca v. C.F.A.O. unreported; digested in (1969) C.C. 156) dismissed the
plaintiffs’ appeal and allowed the applicant’s appeal on the question of
damages. That is, the Court of Appeal increased the damages to the tune of
N¢49,600.00 in favour of the defendant-applicant with costs assessed at. N¢194.
00, After this judgment, the solicitors for the plaintiffs and the solicitor
for the present applicant had discussions as to the payment of the judgment
debt and costs. Since the plaintiffs intended at that time to apply to the full
bench of the then Court of Appeal for a review of the judgment of 15 August
1969, the solicitor for the defendant-applicant herein agreed and accepted
N¢30,000.00 out of the judgment debt “as a deposit against the total judgment
debt” pending the, hearing and the outcome of the said application for a
review.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It must
be pointed out that this arrangement for the payment of the N¢30,000.00 as a
deposit took place before the passing of the Constitution, 1969, even though
the amount was paid after the Constitution had come into existence. The
Constitution came into existence on 22 August 1969 and up to that date the
plaintiffs had not filed their said application. The plaintiffs, however, in or
about June 1970, filed motion before the present Court of Appeal for a review
of the judgment of 15 August 1969. The application was heard and dismissed on
the 20 June 1970. In the mean time the defendant-applicant filed his writ of
fi.fa. in the High Court, Kumasi, intendin</main>