PATU-STYLES AND ANOTHER vs. AMOO-LAMPTEY [1984]DLSC959

Date	1984-01-16
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1984]DLSC959

APALOO C.J.

SOWAH JSC

ADADE JSC

TAYLOR J.S.C.

OSEI-HWERE J.A

TSATSU TSIKATA FOR THE APPELLANTS.

QUIST FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1984]DLSC959
																																						<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" ><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

PATU-STYLES AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p>

{SUPREME COURT, ACCRA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 2 GLR 644<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
16 JANUARY 1984<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>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 FOR THE APPELLANTS. <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, ADADE, TAYLOR JJ.S.C., AND OSEI-HWERE J.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO C.J.<o:p></o:p>I agree
with the judgment to be read by Adade J.S.C. and for the reasons which he gives
I would dismiss the appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF SOWAH J.S.C<o:p></o:p>I also
agree with the judgment to be read by Adade J.S.C. and for the reasons which he
gives I would also dismiss the appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ADADE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>On 14
January 1984 this court unanimously dismissed the above appeal, but we reserved
our reasons. I now proceed to indicate why I concurred in the said decision.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The case
was listed to this court as civil appeal No. 1 of 1983. Opening his case,
however, Mr. Tsikata, counsel for the defendant-appellants, drew attention to
its true nature, as a review-turned-appeal, by virtue of the provisions of
section 5 of the transitional provisions of the Constitution, 1979. The said
section 5 says:<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">“5. Any
review pending before the full bench of the Court of Appeal immediately before
the coming into force of this Constitution shall, subject to section 3 of this
Schedule, be deemed to be an appeal pending before the Supreme Court.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>This case
has been argued at length on the merits and on the technical objection raised
by the plaintiff-respondent as to its competence. I only, wish to make a few
observations on the technical point that the appeal is incompetent, implying
that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain it.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Remember
that under the said section 5 of the transitional provisions, this court can
take over only reviews that were pending before the full bench of the Court of
Appeal when the Constitution came into force on 24 September 1979. Mr. Tsikata
says there was such a review pending. Mr. Quist, for the plaintiff-respondent,
says there was no such review properly pending.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
background facts relevant to a resolution of this conflict may be briefly
stated. Losing his case in the High Court on 3 April 1970, the plaintiff
appealed to the Court of Appeal which on 11 April 1979 reversed the High Co</main>