DARKE IV vs. DARKE IX AND ANOTHER [1980]DLCA1572

Date	1980-06-02
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1980]DLCA1572

JIAGGE JA

EDUSEI J

CHARLES CRABBE J.A.

E. D. KOM (WITH HIM AKYEA DJAMSON DR. E. C. DJAMSON AND T. OFORI) FOR THE APPLICANT.

TETTEH (WITH HIM MAWUDOKU) FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1980]DLCA1572
																																						<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" >DARKE IV <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>DARKE IX AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA] <o:p></o:p>[1980] GLR 144<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:
2
JUNE 1980<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">

E. D. KOM (WITH HIM, AKYEA DJAMSON, DR. E. C.
DJAMSON AND T. OFORI) FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

TETTEH (WITH HIM, MAWUDOKU) 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">

JIAGGE, EDUSEI AND CHARLES CRABBE JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF CHARLES CRABBE J.A.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application “praying for an order for the judgment of 30 July 1979 to be
declared null and void [or] in the alternative be set aside and for such
further or other orders” which in the opinion of this court is, or are,
appropriate.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
facts, for the purposes of this application, are really simple. On 30 July
1979, this court delivered a written judgment. It was in respect of an appeal
argued on 5, 6 and 7 July 1979. Consequent upon that judgment, read in open
court, an order was made 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
appeal by the defendants-appellants is allowed. The judgment of the High Court,
Ho, dated 11 November 1975, declaring the plaintiffs-respondents as the owner
in possession of the land edged in pink or red in colour on the survey plan,
exhibit Z is set aside. Instead, there will be judgment in favour of the
defendants-appellants allowing the counterclaim for a declaration of title and
possession of the land they claim edged green on the plan. As to costs the
defendants-appellants are entitled to costs of this appeal fixed at ¢407.52 and
also the costs in the court below assessed at ¢350. Costs in the court below if
paid, should be refunded.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In his
affidavit in support of the application, Togbe Ayim Darke IV, the applicant,
stated, inter alia:<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">“That I
am informed by my counsel and verily believe same to be true that a court is
bound to give reasons for its decisions and not to make oracular
pronouncements. That the court is also bound to reduce its judgment into
writing and make same available to the parties to the suit and the whole world.
That nine months after the delivery of the judgment, the written judgment
incorporating the reasons thereof is not available. That I am advised by
counsel and verily believe same to be true that the non-availability defeats
the ends of justice and brings the administration of justice into disrepute.
That the impression being created amongst my subjects is that, if really
written reasons for the judgment were read then it should have been available
long ago and that the judgment is being re-written to forestall the points
raised in my application for review. . .”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Togbe
Gobo Darke IX, the first defendant-respondent, admitted most of the facts
stated in the affidavit of the plaintiff-appellant, adding 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">“I am
advised and verily believe same to be true that the absence of the reasons for
judgment does not detract from the efficacy of the judgment of the court; nor
has it adversely affected the applicant who has filed copious arguments in
support of his applications for review and stay of execution, based on notes he
took at the delivery of the judgment. I am further advised that the application
herein is incompetent, it being presented in the wrong forum.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before
this court, counsel for the plaintiff-applicant (hereafter called the
applicant), in asking for the judgment delivered on 30 July 1979 to be vacated
stated that all attempts to secure a certified true copy of the judgment had
proved abortive. It was about ten months since the judgment was delivered. By
the Courts (Amendment) Decree, 1973 (N.R.C.D. 101), reasons must be given for
any judgment delivered. Reasons were given in this case; but then, copies of
the reasons as delivered had not been forthcoming after ten months. That
amounted to no reasons having been given at all and therefore t</main>