DARKWA AND OTHERS vs. KWABI IV [1992]DLSC2004

Date	1992-07-29
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1992]DLSC2004

ARCHER C.J. JSC

WUAKU JSC

AIKINS JSC

BAMFORD-ADDO JSC

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.S.C.

AGYEMAN FOR THE APPLICANTS.

ADUSEI FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[1992]DLSC2004
																																						<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" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">DARKWA AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">KWABI IV<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1992] 1 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">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>AGYEMAN FOR THE APPLICANTS.<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">

ADUSEI FOR THE RESPONDENTS.
<o:p></o:p>

ARCHER C.J., WUAKU, AIKINS, BAMFORD-ADDO AND HAYFRON-BENJAMIN
JJ.S.C. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF WUAKU J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>This is an application by the plaintiff-appellant-applicants
(hereinafter referred to as the applicants) praying that the court relist their
appeal struck out for hearing on its merits and/or grant extension of time
within which to file their statement of case. I am told that it was decided
yesterday by the Supreme Court consisting of seven judges in the case of
Essilfie v. Anafo IV [1992] 2 G.L.R. 654, S.C. that this court has jurisdiction
to relist an appeal deemed to have been struck out under the Supreme Court
Rules, 1970 (C.I. 13), r. 13(2).<o:p></o:p>The undisputed facts of this case as I can deduce from the
affidavits in support and in opposition are these:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;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">(a).
Form 5, the notice of
transmission of records to the Supreme Court, was served on the applicants’ solicitors
on 19 December 1990.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;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">(b).
Pursuant to that notice the
applicants filed their statement of case on 24 January 1991.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:.25in;mso-add-space:auto;
text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;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">(c).&nbsp;
On a date not stated the
applicants learnt that their appeal was on 16 August 1991 struck out for
non-compliance with rule 13(1) of (C.I. 13).<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
5.0pt;margin-left:.25in;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;
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">(d).The applicants
had confirmation of the striking out when the first applicant visited the High
Court, Kumasi on 7 October 991.<o:p></o:p>The applicants instead of filing their statement of case within 21
days from 19 December 1990 did not do so but filed it 36 days later, i.e.
fifteen days after the time permitted under the rules. The applicants argued
that they were late in filing their statement of case because instead of
service of Form 5 being effected on each and everyone of them, it was served on
their solicitors, a firm of solicitors. They said the service was improper as
it offends against rule 12 (1) of C.I. 13.<o:p></o:p>An appeal is brought to this court by notice of appeal in
conformity with rule 6 of C.I. 13 in Form 1 as set out in the First Schedule to
rule 6. Form 1 consists of seven numbered paragraphs: paragraph (1) deals with
the notice of appeal; paragraph (2) deals with the part of the decision
complained of, and in paragraph (3) the would be appellant is requested to give
the particulars of misdirection or error in law in the judgment; paragraph (4)
deals with the grounds of appeal and paragraph (5) the reliefs sought from the
Supreme Court. By paragraph (6) the appellant is to furnish the address for
service on the appellant himself and that of his counsel. The last numbered
paragraph which is (7) deals with the persons directly affected by the appeal,
their names and addresses are to be given.<o:p></o:p>When the Form is thus completed, it is dated and signed by the
appellant (or the appellants). Rule 70 of C.I. 13, the interpretation section,
provides as follows: “In these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires,
appellant includes the party appealing from a judgment, order or decree and his
Counsel.”<o:p></o:p>