QUANSAH AND ANOTHER vs. DUODU [1983]DLHC2169

Date	1983-07-26
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1983]DLHC2169

HAYFRON J.

DR. A. K. FIADJOE FOR THE APPLICANTS.

ASANTE OFOSUHENE FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1983]DLHC2169
																																						<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" >QUANSAH AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>DUODU <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 1143<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:
26 JULY 1983<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">

DR. A. K. FIADJOE FOR THE APPLICANTS. <o:p></o:p>

ASANTE OFOSUHENE 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">

HAYFRON J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF HAYFRON J.<o:p></o:p>Two
questions were to be determined in this application: the first is whether this
application has been made within time and the second is whether it is necessary
to obtain special leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a ruling of
the High Court in an interlocutory matter.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In
Aryeetey v. Smith [1962] 1 G.L.R. 114 Ollennu J. (as he then was), held that
the right to appeal accrues on the day of the final judgment or order against
which it is sought to appeal; and that in cases where appeal lies by special
leave only, the application for special leave to appeal ought to be brought
within fourteen days of the date of the judgment or order.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>He said
at page 115 that where an appeal lies by special leave only, the would-be
appellant loses his right to apply for special leave to appeal if he fails to
file an application for special leave to appeal within fourteen days of the
judgment or order.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This
application is for special leave to appeal against an order made by this court
given on 7 June 1983. To the extent therefore that special leave is necessary
to launch the appeal, the application ought to have been brought on or before
21 June 1983. The application was filed on 4 July 1983, which is fourteen days
out of time. The would-be appellant therefore lost his right to apply for special
leave to appeal on 21 June 1983. I am called upon to determine also whether it
is necessary to obtain special leave to appeal against a ruling in an
interlocutory matter.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In Bank
of Ghana v. Labone Weavers Enterprises Ltd. [1971] 1 G.L.R. 251 the Court of
Appeal held that it was unnecessary to obtain special leave to appeal against
an interlocutory order of the High Court. They thus dissented from the decision
of the same Court of Appeal in Republic v. Minister of the Interior; Ex parte
Lynes, 22 July 1970, unreported.<o:p></o:p>The
position taken by the Court of Appeal in the Bank of Ghana case (supra) in 1971
has not been affected by subsequent legislation. I hold therefore that this
application is misconceived and is brought without jurisdiction. The application
therefore is not properly before me, and it is accordingly dismissed with costs
of ¢250 to the respondents.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>