NEE-WHANG vs. AMPADU [1972]DLCA2239

Date	1972-03-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1972]DLCA2239

BENTSI-ENCHILL J.S.C

JIAGGE JA

KINGSLEY-NYINAH J.A.

JOE REINDORF FOR THE APPELLANT.

DADE FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1972]DLCA2239
																																						<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" >NEE-WHANG <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>AMPADU <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;[1972] 2 GLR 79<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:
21 MARCH 1972.<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 APPELLANT.<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">

BENTSI-ENCHILL J.S.C., JIAGGE AND KINGSLEY-NYINAH
JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF JIAGGE J.A.<o:p></o:p>Jiagge
J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. This appeal is brought in order to
challenge the validity of the ruling of the High Court, Accra, referring a
cause before it to a referee without the consent of the parties.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondent by his specially endorsed writ instituted an action against the
appellant claiming the sum of ¢2,825.20 together with interest as money paid
for a consideration that had failed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The court
after hearing the evidence of the parties held: “At this stage, it being
palpably clear that the matter is a question of adjustment of accounts, I do
hereby refer the case to a referee, Mr. Brew, Senior High Court Registrar, for
him to go into the accounts and submit his report to the court . . .”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
report of the referee was in due course submitted to the court. The respondent
under Order 36, r. 34 of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954
(L.N. 140A), moved the court to adopt and carry into effect the report of the
referee.<o:p></o:p>At the
hearing of the motion counsel for the appellant raised a preliminary objection
that the motion was irregular because it failed to comply with Order 36, r. 32
which states:<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">“Whenever
a report shall be made by a referee, he shall on the same day cause notice
thereof to be given to all the parties to the trial or the reference before him
by prepaid post letter directed to the address for service of each party, who
shall in due course of post be deemed to have notice of such report.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
objection was overruled by the court on the ground that each party had in fact
received a copy of the referee’s report; a date was fixed for hearing and on
that day counsel on either side was heard in argument on the motion. The court
in its ruling carefully considered the referee’s report in its entirety and
gave judgment for the respondent for the sum of ¢3,407.20 together with
interest calculated at five per cent per annum.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
proceedings in the court below were conducted on the basis that the order
referring the case to the referee was a valid one and not once was there any
suggestion that the order was irregular and of no effect. The only ground of
appeal argued before us was:<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
reference by the learned trial judge of the case to a referee was null, void,
invalid and of no effect, since the law of Ghana makes </main>