GHANA CARGO HANDLING CORPORATION vs. STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION [1976]DLHC388

Date	1976-05-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1976]DLHC388

EDUSEI J.

J. N. OKINE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.

FRIMPONG BOADU FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1976]DLHC388
																																						<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" >GHANA CARGO HANDLING CORPORATION <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[HIGH
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 2 GLR 324<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:
12 MAY 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">

J. N. OKINE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS.<o:p></o:p>

FRIMPONG BOADU 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">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.<o:p></o:p>On 21
October 1975, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal in respect of this case and
made the following order. “We also remit this suit to the High Court and direct
that it shall be heard and disposed of not later than two months from the date
hereof.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This case
has not been disposed of within the time stipulated by the order of Court of
Appeal for the simple reason that the civil list of the High Court which is now
assigned to one judge is so heavy that sometimes at one sitting as many as
between 30 and 60 cases are listed for hearing in the High Court. Cases
therefore are adjourned from time to time in the interest of justice. It is
humanly impossible for any one judge who has to write down all proceedings to
go through such a list in one day. Besides, other cases which require prompt
hearing and determination by the High Court are still pending before the court.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Be that
as it may, an application was filed on 3 March 1976 by the plaintiffs praying
for leave of the court to withdraw a certain sum of money paid into court, and
the matter coming on for hearing the defendants’ counsel has raised the point
that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The reason
for this contention is that the order of the Court of Appeal stipulated the
time of two months within which the case ought to have been disposed of and the
two months have passed and the case has not been disposed of.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is
correct that the two months expired on 20 December 1975 but I have to consider
whether the order as to the fixed period of time made by the Court of Appeal is
binding on the High Court.<o:p></o:p>It is
necessary to refer to Order 36, r. 19 of the High Court (Civil Procedure)
Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), and it 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">“The
Judge may, if he think it expedient for the interests of justice, postpone or
adjourn a trial for such time, and to such place within the Judicial Division
to which he is assigned, and upon such terms, if any, as he shall think fit.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
provision gives a wide discretion to the trial judge in the High Court to
adjourn a case before him from time to time in the interest of justice and,
since the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954, have the force of statute I
do not think any court can take away this discretionary power. This discretion
in the High Court judge to adjourn a case from time to time is the creation of
legislation and the order of the Court of Appeal that the High Court should
hear and dispose of the case within two months, i.e. within a fixed period of
time, runs contrary to Order 36, r. 19 which is the outcome of a power
conferred on the Rules Committee by a statute. Such an order fetters the
discretionary powers of the High Court judge. In my opinion the order of the
Court of Appeal was given without consideration of Order 36, r. 19 of the High
Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), and it was therefore given per
incuriam.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The said
order cannot therefore bind this court, and in view of the wide discretionary
power given to a judge of the High Court by the said Order 36, r. 19, I rule</main>