IN RE OPPONG (DECD.); MENSAH AND ANOTHER vs. BEDIAKO [1991]DLSC2255

Date	1991-07-08
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1991]DLSC2255

ADADE JSC

WUAKU JSC

AMUA-SEKYI JSC

OSEI-HWERE JSC

EDWARD WIREDU JJ.S.C.

J. K. AGYEMAN (WITH HIM MAJOR OSEI-BOATENG) FOR THE APPLICANT.

RESPONDENT IN PERSON.

[1991]DLSC2255
																																						<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
OPPONG (DECD.); MENSAH AND ANOTHER<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>BEDIAKO<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1991] 2
GLR 357<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">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>J. K.
AGYEMAN (WITH HIM MAJOR OSEI-BOATENG) FOR THE APPLICANT.<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">

RESPONDENT
IN PERSON. <o:p></o:p>

ADADE,
WUAKU, AMUA-SEKYI, OSEI-HWERE AND EDWARD WIREDU JJ.S.C. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT
OF ADADE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>I have
already given my opinion on rule 66 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1970 (C.I. 13)
in the ruling I read in Dei IX v. Darke XII [1991] 2 G.L.R. 318, S.C. this
morning. I am of the view that this court has jurisdiction under rule 66 of
C.I. 13 to extend the time in which an appellant may file a statement of his
case pursuant to rule 13(1) of C.I. 13.<o:p></o:p>I have
nothing to add to what I there said.<o:p></o:p>JUDGMENT OF WUAKU J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>The
applicants herein lost an administration action before the High Court, Kumasi,
and again on an appeal before the Court of Appeal. The applicants were granted
special leave to appeal to this court. The applicants duly fulfilled the
conditions of appeal imposed upon them, and when the appeal record was ready,
they were duly informed by the service on them of Form 5.<o:p></o:p>After the
service on them, the applicants ought to have complied with rule 13(1) of the
Supreme Court Rules, 1970 (C.I. 13). This they failed to do, and thus rule 13
(2) automatically became operative whereby the appeal was struck out by
operation of law. C.I. 13(1) and (2) provide:<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><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>By their
application the applicants are praying for:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
an order
relisting the case to the cause list for hearing notwithstanding the issuance
of the notice of non-compliance with rule 13(1) of the Supreme Court Rules,
1970 (C.I. 13) by the registrar of this honourable court; <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
further
time, that is to say an extension of time to file their statement of case in
this appeal notwithstanding the fact that the time limited for filing of the
said statement of case has expired; and <o:p></o:p><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:5.0pt;margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;
text-indent:-.5in;mso-pagination:none;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(iii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
any other
order or orders as to this court may deem fit.”<o:p></o:p>