<p class="mb-5" id="contentDlCitation" hidden>[1992]DLSC4286</p> <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: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; color:#00B0F0">SAM <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; color:#00B0F0"> NOAH AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p></span></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="center" style="text-align:center;border:none; mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">[1993 - 4] 1 GBR 238 – 240 DATE: 14 JULY 1992<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">CORAM:<o:p></o:p></span></b></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" style="text-align:justify;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">WUAKU JSC, AMUA-SEKYI JSC, OSEI-HWERE JSC, BAMFORD-ADDO JSC, HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">WUAKU JSC. This is an application by the defendants pursuant to CI 13 rule 9(3) and (4) praying for an order re-listing or restoring to the list their appeal which was dismissed on the 13th day of November 1989, and also asking for extension of time within which to fulfil the conditions of appeal imposed on them. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is dated 28/7/88. In a supporting affidavit to the application, the lst defendant for himself and on behalf of the other two defendants had deposed that immediately after the Appeal Court gave judgment against them, they instructed their lawyer, one Mr J Ofori to lodge an appeal on their behalf.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">The affidavit evidence shows that the said Mr J Ofori, as well as the respondent, and his counsel attended the settlement of record. By 13 November 1989, the conditions of appeal imposed had not been complied with resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">Giving their reasons for the non-compliance, the applicants allege that they are illiterates, and that their lawyer never informed them of the conditions which were imposed, and moreover the lst defendant was for a long time indisposed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">The respondent has deposed to an affidavit denying the applicants’ allegations of fact. He deposed that two weeks after the appeal was dismissed, he went to the Registrar to obtain a copy of the order dismissing the appeal and met counsel for the applicants who had also come for the same purpose. He complained that he was not aware that the matter was before the court.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">Both the applicants and the respondent have made strong allegations against lawyer Ofori which in our view need a response from him. More importantly, we are of the view that the applicants’ plea of illiteracy is no excuse, and so is the alleged ill-health of the lst defendant, the proof of which is lacking. The applicants did not state when they became aware of the dismissal of the appeal. We think that the applicants are not candid enough with the court in their explanation of the two years three months delay in bringing the application.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">In Ratnam v Cumarasamy [1965] 1 WLR 8 at 12, PC, the applicant was four days out of time in fulfilling conditions of appeal and the Privy Council held:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">“The rules of court must prima facie be obeyed, and in order to justify a court in extending the time during which some step in procedure requires to be taken there must be some material upon which the court can exercise its discretion. If the law were otherwise, a party in breach would have an unlimited right to an extension of time which would defeat the purpose of the rules, which is to provide a time table for litigation.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">And in another case, Revici v Prentice Hall Incorporated [1969] 1 WLR 157 at 159, CA, Lord Denning said:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height: 107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""> “Nowadays we regard time very differently from the way they did in the 19th century. We insist on the rules as to time being observed. We have had occasion recently to dismiss many cases for want of prosecution when people have not kept to rules as to time.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:107%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">We are of the view that the delay of almost two and half years in bringing this application is too long and also the grounds or excuse given cannot justify the long delay. No good and sufficient cause has been shown, we are therefore constrained to dismiss the application, which is accordingly dismissed.<o:p></o:p></span></p></span></main>
