REPUBLIC vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX; EX PARTE MAATSCHAPPIJ DE FIJNHOUTHANDEL N.V. (FYNHOUT) [1976]DLCA428

REPUBLIC vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX; EX PARTE MAATSCHAPPIJ DE FIJNHOUTHAND... [1976]DLCA428

Date	1976-02-23
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLCA428

AZU CRABBE C.J.

SOWAH J.A

ANIN J.A

ANNAN J.A.

ABBAN J.

DR. TWUM FOR THE APPLICANTS.

BLANKSON-MILLS FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1976]DLCA428
																																						<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>&nbsp;vs. <o:p></o:p>COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX; EX PARTE<o:p></o:p>MAATSCHAPPIJ DE FIJNHOUTHANDEL N.V. (FYNHOUT)<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 1 GLR 380<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 FEBRUARY 1976.<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">

DR. TWUM FOR THE APPLICANTS.<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 C.J., SOWAH, ANIN AND ANNAN
J.J.A. AND ABBAN J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE C.J.<o:p></o:p>Azu
Crabbe C.J. delivered the ruling of the court. This was an application for an
order setting aside and vacating the judgment of the full bench of the Court of
Appeal reported sub nom. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maatschappij De
Fijnhouthandel N. V.(Fynhout) [1974] 1 G.L.R. 283 given in the above case on 18
March 1974. The history of the case can be briefly stated as follows: On 7
December 1970, the Court of Appeal allowed in favour of the applicants an
appeal against a judgment of the High Court, Accra, refusing an application for
an order of certiorari, and quashed assessments of tax amounting to ¢123,500.00
made by the respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax, on the applicants: see
[1971] 1 G.LR. 213, C.A. On 2 June 1971, the respondent filed a notice of
appeal in the former Supreme Court against this judgment, and this notice of
appeal was served on the applicants on 10 December 1971. Subsequently, by a
letter dated 20 June 1973, the registrar of the Court of Appeal called upon the
solicitor of the respondent to file a statement of his case in pursuance of the
directives from the Chief Justice dated 15 May 1973. This letter was copied to
the applicants, so that they actually became aware of the appeal by the
respondent. The respondent in due course filed the statement of his case, and a
copy of this statement was served on the solicitors of the applicants. In
paragraph (3) of the applicants’ affidavit this fact was admitted. The
procedure to be followed after this stage had been reached in the appeal is
prescribed by rule 13 (4) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1970 (C.I. 13), as
follows:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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">“(4) A
party upon whom an appellant’s statement is served shall, if he wishes to
contest the appeal, within three weeks of such service, or within such time as
the Court upon terms may direct, file the statement of his case in answer to
the appellant’s statement.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
applicants did not file any statement of their case as required by this rule.
On 24 January 1974, the registrar of the Court of Appeal informed the parties
that the full bench had decided to exercise its general powers under rule 23
(1) of the Supreme Court Rules and would accordingly determine the appeal and
give judgment in court without further argument. Judgment was given on 18 March
1974, and the applicants admit in paragraph (5) of their affidavit that their
solicitors had notice of this. The judgment allowed the appeal and the
assessment of the applicants by the respondent was sustained.<o:p></o:p>The facts
upon which the applicants ‘present application was based can be found in the
following paragraphs of their affidavit filed on 10 May 1974:<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">“(7) That
the applicants herein are advised and verily believe the same to be true that
the judgment was irregularly obtained, and should be vacated. <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">(8) That
the appeal which resulted in the judgment of 18 March 1974 was filed hopelessly
out of time, on<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 June
1971. The court therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it.<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">&nbsp;(9) That a copy of the notice of appeal was
never served on us nor on our solicitors, and so there was no opportunity to
bring this irregularity to the notice of the court. We only learnt of this
after the judgment of 18 March 1974, upon a search. <o:p></o:p>