ASCHKAR vs. KARAM [1971]DLCA2202

Date	1971-10-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1971]DLCA2202

AZU CRABBE J.S.C.

LASSEY JA

ARCHER J.A.

JOE REINDORF FOR THE APPLICANT.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1971]DLCA2202
																																						<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" >ASCHKAR <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>KARAM<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[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;[1972] 1 GLR 1<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
25 OCTOBER 1971.<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">

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

NO APPEARANCE BY OR 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 J.S.C., LASSEY AND ARCHER
JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE J.S.C<o:p></o:p>Azu
Crabbe J.S.C. delivered the ruling of the court. This is an application brought
under rule 33 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1962 (L.I. 218), for an order for
review of the Supreme Court’s decision in the above case dated 20 February
1963. Rule 33 reads as follows: [His lordship here read the rule as set out in
the headnote and continued:]<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
matter has had a chequered career in the courts, and for more than eight years
it has deliberately been kept alive by a series of motions; until a stage is
reached where legal ingenuity itself becomes exhausted.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
background of this application is as follows: On 24 May 1961, the late
Adumua-Bossman J. (as he then was) gave judgment against the applicant in the
High Court, Accra, in an action instituted by the respondent in this
application. The applicant appealed to the former Supreme Court on a number of
grounds, and the respondent also cross-appealed. On the date fixed for the
hearing of the appeal, neither the applicant nor his counsel appeared in court,
and the appeal was dismissed with costs for non-prosecution. The respondent’s
cross-appeal was also dismissed on 20 February 1963, after argument.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 4
April 1963, an application for an order “to restore the cross-appeal herein
which was dismissed on 20th day of February, 1963” was filed on behalf of the
applicant by the late Mr. C. F. Hayfron-Benjamin. This was clearly a wrong
application, and on 3 April 1967, it was withdrawn and was dismissed with costs
by the Court of Appeal, which had then succeeded the former Supreme Court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 8 May
1967, a fresh application was filed under rule 33 of the Supreme Court Rules,
1962 (L.I. 218), by Mr. B. J. da Rocha on behalf of the applicant for “an order
to relist” the appeal which was struck out for non-prosecution.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It seems
no action was taken in that application for nearly three years. On 14 April
1970, the respondent (judgment creditor) filed an application in this court for
leave to go into execution in respect of the judgment of 20 February 1963, and
for an order that the present applicant (judgment debtor) should pay interest
at the rate of ten per cent. on the judgment debt from the date of judgment.
This application was fixed for hearing on 11 May 1970. With regard to the
applicant’s application the court made an order 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">“We are
not satisfied that the applicant has been entirely frank in his reason for not
being present during the hearing of the original appeal in 1963. He seems to have
given a different reason at different times. We think that the application is a
tardy one and we do not think good reasons have been shown for re-opening a
matter that was laid to rest seven years ago. We incline to the view that the
</main>