REPUBLIC vs. CAPE COAST CIRCUIT COURT REGISTRAR; EX PARTEARTHUR [1979]DLCA1102

Date	1979-04-12
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1979]DLCA1102

APALOO C.J.

ANIN J.A

ANTERKYI J.

JOE REINDORF FOR R. A. ANKRAH.

SHORT FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1979]DLCA1102
																																						<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>CAPE COAST CIRCUIT COURT REGISTRAR; EX PARTEARTHUR<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1978] GLR 165<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:
12 APRIL 1979<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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">

JOE REINDORF FOR R. A. ANKRAH.<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 1.0pt 0in">

APALOO C.J., ANIN J.A. AND ANTERKYI J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO C.J.<o:p></o:p>Apaloo
C.J. delivered the ruling of the court. On 26 August 1975, house No. H.176,
Agona Swedru, was sold by auction to satisfy a judgment obtained against one
Rachel Aku Ankrah. There was some dispute about the validity of that sale. On account
of this, when the registrar of the circuit court was asked by the purchaser to
issue a certificate of purchase in accordance with the rules of court, he
declined to do so.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>To compel
him to do this, the purchaser, Mary Arthur, sought leave of the High Court,
Cape Coast, for an order of mandamus to compel him to issue such certificate.
Leave was granted. When the court was about to be moved pursuant to such leave,
the judgment debtor, Rachel Aku Ankrah was served with notice of the
application. This accorded with Order 59, r. 4 (2) of the High Court (Civil
Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), because she was directly affected by the
application.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Upon
being served with the application, she filed in court, two affidavits dated 27
October and 27 November 1975. The first affidavit impugned the regularity of
the sale from a purely procedural standpoint and the second deposed to facts,
which properly construed, alleged payment of the debt to the judgment
creditor’s solicitors at an imprecise point of time. But it seems clear her
object in lodging these affidavits was to persuade the court that no lawful
sale of her house took place and that the application for mandamus should be
refused.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>She did
not however appear to have instructed counsel to present any legal argument on
her behalf. So the question of the lawfulness or otherwise of the sale of her
house was debated by the registrar of the circuit court and the purchaser. Both
sides were represented by counsel. On 10 March 1976, the High Court, presided
over by Mrs. Owusu-Addo J. ruled that the sale of the house “was perfectly
regular” and ordered the registrar to issue a certificate of purchase to the
applicant within fourteen days. It is against that ruling that the registrar
appealed to this court on the somewhat vague ground that “Her Lordship erred in
the law applicable in the matter.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In the
true sense of the word, the registrar was purely a nominal appellant. Having no
interest in this case, it would not matter much to him whether or not a
certificate of sale was issued. The real person whose interest was vitally
affected by the order was the said Rachel Aku Ankrah. She stood in danger of
losing her property by reason of the court’s conclusion and consequential
order. She however filed no appeal and can in no sense be described as an
appellant before us.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As is now
fashionable, the appellant-registrar intimated in paragraph 3 (2) of the notice
of appeal that “other grounds to be filed on receipt of the record of
proceedings.” Apparently, the record of proceedings did not disclose any other
grounds of appeal, so he did not implement his declared intention and no “other
grounds” of appeal were filed by him. Had he done so, he could not be heard on
them without leave of this court because rule 8 (5) of the Court of Appeal
Rules, 1962 (L.I. 218), provides in express terms 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">“The
appellant shal</main>