HARLLEY vs. EJURA FARMS (GHANA) LTD. [1977]DLCA1318

Date	1977-05-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1977]DLCA1318

AZU CRABBE C.J

KINGSLEY-NYINAH JA

FRANCOIS J.A

TAYLOR J

ABBAN J.

S. KWAMI TETTEH FOR THE APPLICANT.

R. BANNERMAN FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1977]DLCA1318
																																						<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" >HARLLEY <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>EJURA FARMS (GHANA) LTD. <o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1977] 2 GLR 179<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE:
20 MAY 1977<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">

S. KWAMI TETTEH FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

R. BANNERMAN 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 C.J., KINGSLEY-NYINAH AND<o:p></o:p>

FRANCOIS JJ.A., AND TAYLOR AND ABBAN
JJ.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE C.J.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application to the full bench of the Court of Appeal for a review of the
decision of the ordinary bench of the court dated 27 November 1975 (reported
sub nom. Ejura Farms (Ghana) Ltd. v. Harlley [1976] 1 G.L.R. 158). The ground
for the application was expressed in the following terms: “The Appeal Court was
wrong in holding that the plaintiff‘s money did not get into the hands of the
first defendants. (Additional grounds to be filed later).” This application was
filed on 16 February 1976, and, therefore, within the statutory period of
limitation of three months prescribed by the provisions of rule 8 (1) (b) of
the Supreme Court Rules, 1970 (C.I. 13).<o:p></o:p>On 29
March 1976, the applicant filed the following “additional grounds for review”:<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) the
learned judges of the ordinary bench erred in holding that because there was no
privity of contract between the plaintiff and the first defendants the
plaintiff could not maintain the present action against the first defendants. <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
view taken by the learned judges of the ordinary bench that privity of contract
is an essential ingredient to an action for money had and received is
erroneous. <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) The
view taken by the learned judges of the ordinary bench that the action for
money had and received is not sustainable unless the specific moneys of the
plaintiff are found in the hands of the defendant is erroneous and contrary to
modem commercial practice. <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">(4) The
failure of the learned judges of the ordinary bench to consider the nature of
the action for money had and received as part of the law of restitution
occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>At the
same time the applicant filed a statement of his case in conformity with rule
13 (1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1970 (C.I. 13).<o:p></o:p>On 13 May
1976, the respondents filed a “statement in opposition” in which technical
objections were raised to the application for review. This court ruled on 26
July 1976, that the so-called “statement in opposition” was not sanctioned by
the rules, and it accordingly refused to entertain it. The court observed that
the effect of its ruling was that the respondents were completely out of court
regarding the case generally; but, it, however, took the view that since the
present case involves intricate questions of the law of contract and banking
which should be of special interest to the legal profession and the commercial
community generally, the respondents should be given time “to file their
statement of case within three weeks” pursuant to rule 13 (4) of C.I. 13.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This court
was greatly surprised when it discovered at the hearing of this application on
7 February 1977, that the respondents’ statement of case was not filed until 27
September 1976, in contumelious disregard of the court’s order. This statement
of case was combined with a statement of preliminary objections. The main
contention in the statement of objections was that at no stage did the
applicant comply with the rules laid down in the Courts (Amendment) Decree,
1972 (N.R.C.D. 101), and the Supreme Court Rules, 1970 (C.I. 13). In my
opinion, it lies ill in the mouth of the respondents to complain about breach
of practice rules by their opponent. A wrongdoer whilst persisting in his own
evil deeds cannot seek the law’s assistance against another wrongdoer. To him the
court shall say Procul O! Procul este profani.<o:</main>