IN RE YENDI SKIN AFFAIRS; ANDANI vs. ABUDULAI [1983]DLSC2142

Date	1983-03-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1983]DLSC2142

APALOO C.J.

SOWAH JSC

ADADE JSC

TAYLOR J.S.C

FRANCOIS J.A.

PETER A. ADJETEY (WITH HIM MAHAMA) FOR THE APPLICANT.

E. O. APPIAH (WITH HIM ADUMUA-BOSSMAN) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1983]DLSC2142
																																						<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" >IN RE YENDI SKIN AFFAIRS; ANDANI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ABUDULAI<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1982-83] GLR 1080<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:
29 MARCH 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">

PETER A. ADJETEY (WITH HIM MAHAMA) FOR THE
APPLICANT. <o:p></o:p>

E. O. APPIAH (WITH HIM ADUMUA-BOSSMAN) 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 1.0pt 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ADADE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>This is
an application by the appellant herein, Ya Na Yakubu Andani II, Paramount Chief
of the Dagomba Traditional Area, asking the court to restore to the list an
appeal which was deemed to have been struck out, under rule 13 (2) of the
Supreme Court Rules, 1970 (CI 13). The background to this application is fairly
straightforward. On 10 July 1981, the said Ya Na Yakubu Andani II (hereinafter
referred to simply as the appellant) filed an appeal against a ruling of the
Court of Appeal dated 16 April 1981: see In re Yendi Skin Affairs; Andani v.
Abudulai [1981 G.L.R. 283, C.A. The record of appeal was settled and
transmitted to the Supreme Court. On 26 April 1982, the appellant, at Yendi,
received a notice from the registrar of this court that this appeal had been
struck out under rule 13 (2) of CI 13. The said rule reads:<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">“2. Where
the appellant does not file the statement of his case in accordance with the
provisions of the preceding sub-rule the appeal shall be deemed to have been
struck out and the Registrar shall so inform the parties.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
obligation to file the statement of case is imposed by rule 13 (1) of CI 13
which provides:<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">“13. (1) the
appellant shall, within three weeks of being notified that the record is ready,
file with the Registrar a statement of his case based on the grounds of appeal
as set out in the notice of appeal.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It will
be observed that this obligation matures only after the appellant has been
“notified that the record is ready.” The appellant now says that he never at
any time received any notice that the record was ready. This appeal therefore
could not have been properly struck out under rule 13 (2). He now applies to
have the appeal restored to the list.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>On his
part, Mahamadu Abudulai (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) contends
that the appellant was duly “notified,” and the striking out was proper and
regular. Mr. E. O. Appiah, counsel for the respondent further contends that
where a striking out occurs under rule 13 (2), the appeal cannot be relisted,
for reasons which he argued in great detail and with consummate skill.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Rule 13
(1) which imposes on an appellant the obligation to file a statement of his
case says the appellant shall file the statement “within three weeks of being
notified that the record is ready.” The form of notification and by whom it
should be done are regulated by the preceding rule 12 (1) which provides, “When
the record of appeal is ready the Registrar of the Court below shall cause
notice to be served on all parties to the appeal in the Form 5 set out in the
First Schedule to these Rules.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(The
emphasis is mine.) The Form 5 referred to merely invites the parties to: “Take
notice that the record in the above-named appeal has this day been forwarded to
the Registrar of the Supreme Court...” In other words the notice tells the
parties that the record, being “ready” has been transmitted, thus catering for
rule 12 (1) and (2). Afterall the record cannot be sent ove</main>