KWAO II AND ANOTHER v. QUAYE AND ANOTHER; KWAO II AND ANOTHER vs. BOYE AND ANOTHER; ADDICO AND. AKUFFO (CONSOLIDATED) [1982]DLSC2152

KWAO II AND ANOTHER v. QUAYE AND ANOTHER; KWAO II AND ANOTHER vs. BOYE AND ANOTH... [1982]DLSC2152

Date	1982-03-02
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1982]DLSC2152

ANIN J.S.C.

TSATSU TSIKATA AND MISS NAANA NKETIA (LED BY JOE REINDORF) FOR THE APPLICANT.

NO APPEARANCE BY OR FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1982]DLSC2152
																																						<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" >KWAO II AND ANOTHER v. QUAYE AND ANOTHER; KWAO II AND ANOTHER vs. BOYE AND
ANOTHER; ADDICO <o:p></o:p>AND. <o:p></o:p>AKUFFO (CONSOLIDATED) <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 897<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 MARCH 1982<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">

TSATSU TSIKATA AND MISS NAANA NKETIA (LED BY JOE
REINDORF) FOR THE APPLICANT. <o:p></o:p>

NO APPEARANCE BY OR 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 1.0pt 0in">

ANIN J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ANIN J.S.C<o:p></o:p>This
motion for relistment and for directions has been necessitated by an order made
in chambers by the full bench of the Court of Appeal on or about 12 May 1977
and a subsequent letter dated 19 August 1980 received by the applicant’s
solicitor from the registry of the court below. Paragraph 2 of the said letter
incorporated the order of the full bench and is in the following terms:<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">“My
records reveal that by virtue of section 3 (2) (d) of the Courts (Amendment)
Decree, 1972 (NRCD 101), this appeal became pendent as a review before the full
bench of the Court of Appeal and on 12 May 1977 the court dealt with it in
chambers in accordance with the provisions of the Chief Justice’s directives of
15 May 1975 [see[1973] 2 G.L.R 39]. The result which was copied to your
predecessor, Mr. Joe Reindorf, is as follows: ‘In the absence of substitution
for the original applicant for this review we have no alternative but to
dismiss the application for want of prosecution and it is so dismissed. Yours
faithfully, <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">(Sgd.)
Ag. Registrar, <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">Court of
Appeal.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>A little
background information is called for. The present applicant is the
co-plaintiff-appellant in the suit, Nii Yao Duade Crabbe and Others v. J.A.
Quaye and Another (Consolidated), Court of Appeal, 31 July 1970, unreported in
which the appeal of each of the plaintiffs and the co-plaintiff failed and was dismissed;
the judgment of the trial court in favour of the co-defendant was varied in
accordance with the notice of contention filed; and a declaration of title was
made in favour of the Sempe stool to the land edged green in the plan, exhibit
D. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was unanimous.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 8
April 1971, a notice of appeal was filed by the applicant herein in the then
Supreme Court. This appeal was pending on the commencement of the Courts
(Amendment) Decree, 1972 (NRCD 101), on 13 September 1972; and under section 3
(2) (d) thereof, the full bench of the Court of Appeal was invested with
jurisdiction “to hear and determine any appeal which had been duly filed with
the Supreme Court before the commencement of this Decree.” The instant appeal,
which was then pending, clearly fell within the category of pending appeals
saved by section 3 (2) (d) of NRCD 101; and the full bench of the Court of
Appeal was clothed with jurisdiction under section 3 (2) (d) of NRCD 101 to
hear and determine it as an appeal in accordance with the procedure laid down
in Part II of the Supreme Court Rules, 1970 (CI 13).<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It would,
however, appear from the exhibits filed and correspondence emanating from the
registry of the court below that this pending appeal was, in fact, heard and
determined as a review in chambers by the full bench of the Court of Appeal and
the result was subsequently communicated to the appellant’s former solicitor by
letter.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In Mosi
v. Bagyina [1963] 1 GLR 337 at p. 347, S.C. the former Supreme Court per
Akufo-Addo J.S.C. (as he then was) held that:<o:p></o:p>“(1)
Where a judgment or an order is void either because it is given or made without
jurisdiction or because it is not warranted by any law or rule or procedure,
the party</main>