TRABOULSI & CO. vs. PATERSON ZOCHONIS & CO., LTD. [1973]DLCA2211

Date	1973-07-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLCA2211

AZU CRABBE JSC

PREMPEH J.S.C

ARCHER J.A.

MISS A. A. AYISI FOR THE APPELLANTS.

HAMMOND-LAING FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1973]DLCA2211
																																						<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" >TRABOULSI &amp; CO. <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>PATERSON ZOCHONIS &amp; CO., LTD. <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;[1973]
1 GLR 133<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:
24 JULY 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">

MISS A. A. AYISI FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

HAMMOND-LAING FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<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 AND PREMPEH JJ.S.C. AND
ARCHER J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>This
appeal arises from the refusal of Hayfron-Benjamin J. to grant an application
by the appellants for an order for an extention of time within which to fulfill
the conditions of appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The facts
are that on 20 January 1971, judgment was given against the appellants in the
District Court, Accra, and on 31 January 1971, the appellants filed notice of
intention to appeal to the High Court. The appellants allege here that due to
an oversight they were unable to fulfil the conditions of appeal within seven
days as required by the rules, and that on 21 May 1971, they applied to the
district court for an extension of time to enable them to fulfil these conditions.
This application was refused. Realising that the application to the district
court was misconceived, the appellants repeated their application for an
extension of time before the High Court by filing a notice of motion on 21 May
1971. This application eventually came before Hayfron-Benjamin J. who dismissed
it in the following words:<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">“Per
court: I do not think the lapse of six months since judgment is reasonable.
There is no explanation for this delay. The application for an extension of
time is dismissed. Costs to the respondent assessed at N¢20.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Against
this ruling of Hayfron-Benjamin J. the appellants have appealed to this court
on the following grounds:<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 learned judge erred in finding that length of time was material to the
exercise of his discretion.<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) The
learned judge was in law bound to grant the extension of time.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Arguing
ground (1) of the appeal, Miss Ayisi, counsel for the appellants, has submitted
that the learned trial judge was wrong in exercising his discretion because he
failed to take into consideration other factors apart from lapse of time. He
did not appear, she argued, to have considered the balance of hardship in the
matter, and that the respondents could be adequately compensated by costs for
any inconvenience caused to them. On the second ground Miss Ayisi referred to
Order 64, r. 6 of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N.
140A), and cited Botchway v. Nassar (1946) 12 W.A.C.A. 23 in support of her
contention that the defect in the proceedings was a mere technicality, and that
the learned judge ought to have granted the application for an extension of
time to fulfil the conditions of appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>For the
respondents Mr. Hammond-Laing argued that the court ought not to interfere with
the exercise of discretion by the judge. Secondly he said, the ruling of the
district court still stood; it was an interlocutory ruling, and there had been
no appeal from it. Mr. Hammond-Laing referred us to Order 58, rr. 3 (4), 5 and
6 of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), and
submitted that the deci</main>