TAKYI vs. GHASSOUB (GHANA) LTD. [1988]DLSC811

Date	1988-06-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1988]DLSC811

ADADE JSC

TAYLOR JSC

FRANCOIS J.S.C

AMPIAH JA

LAMPTEY J.A.

ASARE BEDIAKO FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN FOR THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENTS

[1988]DLSC811
																																						<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" >TAKYI <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>GHASSOUB (GHANA) LTD. <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] 2 GLR 452<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 21
JUNE 1988<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">

ASARE BEDIAKO FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. <o:p></o:p>

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN FOR THE DEFENDANT-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 0in 0in">

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

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF ADADE J.S.C<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter called the plaintiff) sued the defendants in
July 1983, for the return of his caterpillar and damages for its wrongful
seizure. The defendants denied liability and counterclaimed for ¢121,919.95 as
money owed them by the plaintiff. On the application of the plaintiff, the
court on 24 July 1985 referred the question of the accounts between the parties
to two accounting experts to be nominated one each by the parties. The
plaintiff nominated a Mr. Asmah. The defendants decided to use their accounts
clerk, assisted by their solicitor. The registrar of the court was to be the
co-ordinator.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
report of the reference was submitted on 24 February 1986. On 10 April 1986,
the learned High Court judge, Okunor J, was retired by the Provisional National
Defence Council on grounds of ill-health. On 12 June 1986, however, taking the
view that he could notwithstanding his retirement complete cases that were
part-heard before him, the learned judge sat in open court and delivered his
judgment, based on the report of the reference. He gave judgment for the
plaintiffs’ on the seizure of his caterpillar, and dismissed the defendants’
counterclaim. Said the learned judge:<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">“. . .
the only conclusion is that the defendants’ seizure of the plaintiff’s
caterpillar in March 1983 was wrongful and I consequently make the declaration
sought by the plaintiff on the writ of summons and dismiss the counterclaim of
the defendants. I shall deal with the question of damages and costs at a later
date.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
defendants have appealed against the said judgment of 12 June 1986. As that
aspect of the matter is pending before the Court of Appeal, I refrain from
saying anything which may have the effect of pre-emptying the decision in that
appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In order,
no doubt, to stop the learned judge from proceeding to deal with “the question
of damages and costs”, the defendants applied to the High Court, Kumasi to stay
the proceedings. The application was dismissed by the court on 17 July 1987.
Five days later, i.e. on 22 July 1987, the defendants filed a fresh application
the Court of Appeal for a stay of the proceedings in the High Court, ie the
proceedings on “the question of damages and costs.” On 13 October 1987 the
Court of Appeal granted the application, and stayed the proceedings in the High
Court “pending the hearing and determination of the appeal” against the
judgment of 12 June 1986.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
plaintiff has now appealed to this court against the ruling of the Court of
Appeal dated 13 October 1987. His main ground is that the Court of Appeal has
no supervisory jurisdiction over the High Court and cannot order a stay of
proceedings in that court. The order of 13 October 1987 was therefore given
without jurisdiction, it is void and should be vacated. The appeal was filed on
26 October 1987. Mr. Hayfron-Benjamin, for the defendant-respondents, has taken
the preliminary objection that the Court (Amendment) Law, 1987 (P.N.D.C.L. 191)
came into effect on 26 October 1987, and by virtue of section 1 of that Law,
the plaintiff should have sought leave before bringing his appeal. I shall
comment on this aspect of the matter later.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
ruling of the Court of Appeal given on 13 October 1987 is short, and deserves
to be quoted in extenso:<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">