ESSILFIE AND OTHERS vs. ANAFO AND OTHERS [1992]DLSC2011

Date	1992-07-28
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1992]DLSC2011

ARCHER C.J. JSC

ADADE JSC

FRANCOIS JSC

AMUA-SEKYI JSC

OSEI-HWERE JSC

EDWARD WIREDU JSC

BAMFORD-ADDO J.S.C.

T.C. KUMI FOR THE APPLICANT.

JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE RESPONDENT

[1992]DLSC2011
																																						<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">ESSILFIE 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">ANAFO AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1992] 2 GLR 654<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>T.C. KUMI 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">

JAMES AHENKORAH FOR THE RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

ARCHER C.J. ADADE, FRANCOIS, AMUA-SEKYI, OSEI-HWERE, EDWARD WIREDU
AND BAMFORD-ADDO JJ.S.C. <o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF ARCHER C.J.<o:p></o:p>This is an application for extension of time for the filing of a
statement of case. The applicant (an illiterate) deposed in his affidavit in
support of the application that when he received the record of proceedings in
October 1991, he approached his counsel in Kumasi to prosecute the appeal.
Unfortunately, his counsel could not handle the appeal and he instead referred
the application to another lawyer who also thought that in order to minimise
costs, it would be better to brief counsel in Accra to deal with the appeal.
But nothing was done until the applicant himself engaged the present counsel in
this application who advised that leave should be sought to enable the
statement of case to be filed out of time.<o:p></o:p>Learned counsel for the applicant relied on rule 66 of the Supreme
Court Rules, 1970 (C.I. 13) and submitted that although there were two
conflicting decisions as regards the applicability of rule 66 on the question
of jurisdiction of this court, the application nevertheless should be granted
by virtue of the earlier decision in Dei XI v. Darke XII [1991] 2 G.L.R. 318,
S.C. and that the ruling in In re Oppong (Decd.); Mensah v. Bediako [1991] 2
G.L.R. 357, S.C. should not be followed.<o:p></o:p>Learned counsel for the respondent did not rely on paragraph (8)
of the affidavit in opposition which averred that this court had no
jurisdiction to extend time for the purpose the applicant desired; but counsel
rather conceded that the court had jurisdiction. However, he argued that
notwithstanding his concession, the application should be dismissed on the
merits.<o:p></o:p>Both counsel agree that the court has jurisdiction and the
question is whether any attempt should be made to resolve the conflict in the
two decisions earlier mentioned. I intend to make a modest attempt in this
judgment. When the Republican Constitution, 1969 was promulgated, the Supreme
Court as it exists today was established with clearly defined jurisdictions.
However, when the rules of court were made, they were classified as follows:<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">(1).
jurisdiction to hear civil
appeals;<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">(2).
jurisdiction to hear criminal
appeals;<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">(3).
original jurisdiction to
interpret and enforce the constitution;<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">(4).
references to the court; and<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">(5). petitions for challenging election of the President.<o:p></o:p><</main>