BUCKLE AND ANOTHER vs. ASAFO COMPANY [1973]DLHC2370

Date	1973-03-23
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1973]DLHC2370

BAIDOO J.

A. K. B. AMPIAH FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

J. B. SHORT FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1973]DLHC2370
																																						<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" >BUCKLE AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ASAFO COMPANY <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, CAPE
COAST]<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]
2 GLR 14<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:
23 MARCH 1973.<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">

A. K. B. AMPIAH FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

J. B. SHORT FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF BAIDOO J.A.<o:p></o:p>This case
came to this court on appeal from the judgment of the Cape Coast Municipal
Court B dated 30 June 1960. The appeal was fully argued by counsel for the two
parties after which the High Court then presided over by the late Owusu J. (of
blessed memory), adjourned the matter for judgment. The judgment of the High
Court in the appeal was duly delivered by Owusu J. on 9 March 1970. He found as
facts:<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 co-plaintiff was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses
who testified in the court below.<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) That
the co-plaintiff was not given an opportunity to adduce any evidence at all and
yet the defendants were permitted to make a submission of no case whereupon the
court below (i.e. the Cape Coast Municipal Court B) gave its judgment in favour
of the defendant.<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">(3) That
there was a shifting quorum of the court panel members who heard the case.
Different panel members sitting on different dates heard the evidence in bits.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On these
findings Owusu J. properly declared the trial in the court below null and void.
This of course meant that there had in law never been any trial of the case
which was therefore still pending in the court below. The concluding paragraph
of the judgment of Owusu J. was as follows: “For the various reasons, this
court has no alternative but to declare the whole proceedings before the
Municipal Court B a nullity and to direct that the case be heard de novo in the
High Court, Cape Coast.”<o:p></o:p>

The
following three questions must at this stage be answered:<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) Under what circumstances can
a High Court transfer a case pending in the lower court to the High Court for
trial there?<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) Can the High Court order a
re-hearing de novo in the High Court where in a case which has come to the High
Court on appeal the judge after hearing full arguments gives its judgment
declaring the proceedings to be null and void<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">(3) Does rule 17 of Order 58 of
the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), permit this
to be done straightaway or must the parties be referred back before the court
below to formally object to the jurisdiction of the court and ask for a transfer
to the High Court?<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
proceedings were declared null and void on 9 March 1970. The Courts Decree,
1966 (N.L.C.D. 84), was then the relevant legislation in force and to answer
the first ques</main>