REPUBLIC vs. ACHEAMPONG ALIAS NANA NYAN IV; EX PARTE NANA AFFUL EFFRIM IV [1973]DLHC2242

Date	1973-10-31
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2242

SARKODEE J.

K. K. DEI-ANANG FOR THE APPLICANT.

JAMES MERCER FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1973]DLHC2242
																																						<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" >REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ACHEAMPONG ALIAS NANA NYAN IV; EX PARTE NANA AFFUL EFFRIM IV <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;[1973]
1 GLR 160<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:
31 OCTOBER 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">

K. K. DEI-ANANG FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

JAMES MERCER 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SARKODEE J.<o:p></o:p>This
court presided over by Francois J. during vacation granted the applicant leave
to apply for an order of injunction in the nature of quo warranto directed to
Isaac Annobil Acheampong, otherwise known as Nana Nyan IV, the respondent
herein. The learned judge ordered notices to issue and fixed 17 October 1972
for the hearing of the application.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Pursuant
to the leave granted the applicant filed the notices. Subsequently the
respondent filed a summons asking that the order granting leave to the
applicant on 6 September 1972 and all subsequent proceedings be set aside for
irregularity on the grounds that:<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">“(a)
Order 59, r. 4 (3) has not been complied with: <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">(b) the
affidavits by Kofi Onyemualey sealed herein on 30 August 1972 and 13 September
1972, have not been endorsed in accordance with Order 38, r. 10; <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">(c) the
purported statement filed on 13 September 1972 does not comply with Order 59,
r. 2 (2); <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">(d) the
purported statement served with the notice of motion on 13 September 1972, is
not a copy of the statement accompanying the application for leave none having
been filed as required by Order 59, r. 5 (1); <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">(e) this
honourable court made the order granting leave on 6 September, [sic] without the
application being accompanied by a statement as required by Order 59, r. 2
(2).”<o:p></o:p>With
regard to the first ground learned counsel for the respondent conceded that the
error was curable by filing the necessary affidavit and therefore did not press
that point. In any case affidavits of service sworn to were on the court’s file
prior to the hearing of the application for leave.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Counsel
then argued the second ground emphasizing that the language of Order 38, r. 10
is mandatory and imperative. In my view this ground is misconceived because the
two affidavits complained of adequately supplied information as to who the
deponents were and on whose behalf they were filed. In support of ground (e)
learned counsel submitted that this court made the order granting leave without
the affidavit being accompanied by a statement as required by Order 59, r. 2
(2). He submitted that no statement was lodged at all and therefore a vital
jurisdictional foundation was missing. Counsel added that an affidavit however
copious it might be could not take the place of a statement. Ground (e) was taken
together with (d) and counsel concluded his submissions by stating that this
court has power to set aside the proceedings because the order granting leave
was void ab initio and relied on Mosi v. Bagyina [1963] 1 G.L.R. 337, S.C.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>