REPUBLIC vs. DARKWA [1982]DLSC2193

Date	1982-06-08
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1982]DLSC2193

APALOO C.J.

SOWAH JSC

ARCHER JSC

ADADE JSC

TAYLOR J.S.C.

MRS. ZWENNES (MRS. CAMPBELL WITH HER) FOR THE REPUBLIC.

S. KWAME TETTEH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1982]DLSC2193
																																						<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>DARKWA <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 126<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:
8 JUNE 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">

MRS. ZWENNES (MRS. CAMPBELL WITH HER) FOR THE
REPUBLIC. <o:p></o:p>

S. KWAME TETTEH FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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">

APALOO C.J., SOWAH, ARCHER, ADADE AND
TAYLOR JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO C.J.<o:p></o:p>Apaloo
C.J. read the ruling of the court. During the era of the Armed Forces
Revolutionary Council (i.e. June - September, 1979), a committee popularly
called the “Huppenbauer Committee” conducted investigations into some aspects
of the Ghana Police Service. Adverse findings were apparently made against the
respondent by the committee which recommended her retirement. This was accepted
by the government and the respondent together with other police officers
similarly circumstanced, were retired from the Police Service on 22 September,
1979.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
respondent contested the adverse findings made against her in the Court of
Appeal. It appears that in that court, the applicant disputed the competence of
the court to entertain the appeal. The Court of Appeal found against that
contention and heard the appeal on its merits. On 26 February, 1981, the court
set aside the adverse findings made against the respondent and as that was the
basis of her enforced retirement, advised the applicant to reinstate her.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
applicant claimed to have been aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal
and appealed against it to this court. In due course, the record of appeal
required by rule 12 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1970 (CI 13) was transmitted to
this court. On 2 June, 1981 the registrar of the court below in obedience to
that selfsame rule duly notified the applicant of the transmission of the
record.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
applicant came under an obligation to file a statement of its case based on the
grounds of appeal within three weeks of receiving such notice. On the facts of
this case, the applicant should have filed that case on or by 23 June, 1981. It
did not do so.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>As by 2
July, 1981 it had not then filed such a case, the appeal was deemed to have
been struck out by the force of rule 13 (2). The registrar incurred an
obligation under this rule to inform the parties of this position. The record
shows that at 11.55 a.m. that very day, i.e. 2 July, 1981, the notice of
striking out was served on the applicant through the then Deputy
Attorney-General, Mr. Djabatey, at the Attorney-General’s Office.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
applicant did nothing further about this appeal. There is evidence that just
six weeks after being notified of the striking out, the Police Council which is
the constitutional body charged with this matter, caused it to be announced in
the media that it would not reinstate the respondent but would instead pay her
arrears of salary and other entitlements. The respondent accepted this position
and in October, 1981, received payment of salaries due her from September 1979
to July, 1981. She is now awaiting payment of her gratuity and other
entitlements.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On 10
March, 1982, the applicant sought to resurrect the appeal. This was over eight
months after it was struck out. The method it employed was to invite us to
waive its breach of rule 13 (2) and permit it to file a statement of case as
required by rule 13 (1). Its avowed reason was that the appeal involves some
unspecified constitutional issues and that its failure to file a statement of
case was not wilful nor was it intended to overreach. It claimed that the
interest of justice demands that we exercise our discretion in its favour under
rule 66 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1970.<o:p></o:p>