MERAH vs. OKRAH [1985]DLCA944

Date	1985-01-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1985]DLCA944

ADADE J.S.C

MENSA BOISON JA

OSEI-HWERE J.A

E. D. KOM FOR THE APPELLANT.

RESPONDENT IN PERSON.

[1985]DLCA944
																																						<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">

MERAH <o:p></o:p>

{COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA} <o:p></o:p>

[1984-86] 1 GLR 400<o:p></o:p>

DATE:
30 JANUARY 1985<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">

E.
D. KOM FOR THE APPELLANT. <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">

ADADE J.S.C., MENSA BOISON AND OSEI-HWERE JJ.A<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ADADE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>Adade
J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. Section 10 (7) of the Courts Act,
1971 (Act 372) stipulates that:<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">“7. The
Court of Appeal shall not entertain any appeal unless the appellant has
fulfilled all the conditions [of appeal] prescribed by the Rules of Court.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(The emphasis
is ours.) The said conditions of appeal require, inter alia, that the appellant
shall file a notice of appeal within the prescribed time as provided by rule 10
of the Supreme Court Rules, 1962 (L.I. 218), and, in addition, fulfil the
conditions imposed by the registrar of the trial court at the time of settling
the record of appeal, viz:<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">“(a) that
the appellant shall as provided by L.I. 218, r. 12 (4) ‘deposit ... a sum ...
to cover the estimated expense of making up and forwarding the record of appeal
...’and in addition, <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">(b) in
compliance with L.I. 218, r. 13 deposit such sum . . . or give security
therefore by signing a bond . . . for the due prosecution of the appeal and for
the payment of any costs which may be ordered to be paid by the appellant.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
registrar normally sets a time limit within which the conditions imposed by him
pursuant to rules 12 (4) and 13 are to be fulfilled, usually one month.<o:p></o:p>The
question posed for resolution in this ruling is: what happens if the appellant
fails to fulfil the conditions imposed by the registrar under rules 12 (4) and
13 of L.I. 218, either at all or within the correct time?<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In this
case the Circuit Court, Tarkwa gave judgment against the defendant-appellant on
6 January 1983. She duly filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal on 18 January
1983, and on the same day filed an application at Tarkwa to stay execution of
the judgment. The application was dismissed on 18 February 1983. The record of
appeal was settled on 6 May 1983, at which the appellant was enjoined to
deposit. ¢400 cash to cover the cost of preparing the record as required by
rule 12 (4) of L.I. 218 and a further sum of ¢300 or sign a bond in lieu, for
the due prosecution of the appeal as required under rule 13 of L.I. 218. The
appellant was given one month, effective 6 May 1983, to fulfil these
conditions. The appellant’s counsel was present at the settlement. Neither the
respondent nor his counsel was present. As is permitted by the rules, the
appellant repeated her application for stay in the Court of Appeal. It seems
that she failed to appear in the said court, which on 13 June 1983 struck it
out for want of prosecution.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Barely a
month afterwards, on 27 July 1983, the appellant applied to the court to relist
and hear the motion which had been struck out on 13 June 1983. The application
for relistment was heard on 28 November 1983. The appellant was represented by
counsel but the respo</main>