JOSEPH vs. FARISCO (GHANA) LTD. [1991]DLSC2257

Date	1991-11-25
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1991]DLSC2257

WUAKU JSC

AMUA-SEKYI JSC

OSEI-HWERE JJ.S.C.

KPEGAH JA

OFORI-BOATENG JJ. A.

NEILS LUTTERODT FOR THE APPLICANT.

JOHNNY HANSEN FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1991]DLSC2257
																																						<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" >JOSEPH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>FARISCO
(GHANA) LTD.<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1991] 2
GLR 464<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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:right;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">Date: 25 NOVEMBER 1991<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>NEILS
LUTTERODT 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">

JOHNNY
HANSEN FOR THE RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

WUAKU,
AMUA-SEKYI AND OSEI-HWERE JJ.S.C., KPEGAH AND OFORI-BOATENG JJ. A. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT
OF KPEGAH J.A.<o:p></o:p>Kpegah
J.A. delivered the ruling of the court. In these proceedings, the
appellant-applicant (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) is seeking an
order of this court to set aside the issuance of the notice of dispatch of the record
of appeal (Form 5) which was served on his solicitors. The prayer of the
applicant is akin to a motion to set aside the service of a writ of summons as
provided for under Order 12, r. 24 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules,
1954 (L.N. 140A).<o:p></o:p>When the
motion came up for hearing, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr Neils
Lutterodt, informed the court that Mr Johnny Hansen, solicitor for the
respondent, had indicated to him that he was not opposed to the application.
The court interpreted this concession to the applicant by Mr Johnny Hansen to
mean only that he has no assistance to offer the court; and since the issue is
one of law, we decided to take argument from Mr Lutterodt and to examine the
problem.<o:p></o:p>The
applicant is the appellant in civil appeal No. 8/91 which is pending in this
court. On 30 September 1991, notice to the parties of the dispatch of the
record of appeal, Form 5, was duly served on the solicitors for the applicant.
The registrar of the court below took this step in discharge of a statutory
duty imposed on him by rule 12(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1970 (CI 13).<o:p></o:p>When the
applicant’s solicitors were served with Form 5, they took the rather
unprecedented step of returning the process the same day on the ground that
there were certain omissions in the record of appeal which made it almost
impossible for them to prepare their statement of case within the stipulated
time of three weeks as required by the rules of this court. It seems to us that
the applicant’s solicitors might have been in possession of the record of
proceedings before the registrar served them with the notice of dispatch of the
record of appeal to this court.<o:p></o:p>We think
it is prudent, since it will aid a better appreciation of the ruling, if the
relevant paragraphs of Mr Neils Lutterodt’s affidavit in support of the motion
are quoted. Paragraphs (3)-(5) of the said affidavit state:<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">“(3) That
upon receipt of the Form 5, I wrote to the Registrar of the Supreme Court,
Accra on 30 September 1991 notifying him of the many transparent errors and
omissions in the record of proceedings, notably the omissions of a part of the
judgment of the Court of Appeal which judgment forms the subject of our appeal
to this court. A copy of the letter is annexed herewith and marked NL-1. <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">(4) That
in the circumstances, I was compelled to return the record of proceedings to
the registrar for the necessary steps to be taken to remedy the defects in the
record. <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) That
as a result of the incomplete nature of the record of proceedings, it has become
almost impossible to prepare our statement of case within the stipulated time
of three weeks as required by the rules of this court, hence the need for this
application to set aside the issuance of Form 5 to enable the registrar duly
complete the record and to prevent time from running against the filing of our
statement within the stipulated time.”<o:p></o:p>Whenever
the registrar of the court below has discharged his statutory duty under rule
12(1) of CI 13 by serving notice of the dispatch of the record of appeal, a
corresponding duty devolves on an appellant who is desirous of prosecuting his
appeal. This duty is created by rule 13(1) of CI 13 and the sanction for any
default is provided for in sub-rule 2 of the said rule. Rule 13(1) of CI 13
which creates the duty states:<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>