BARCLAYS BANK (GH) LTD vs. GHANA CABLE CO LTD [1996]DLCA540

Date	1996-05-16
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1996]DLCA540

WOOD JA

BADDOO JA

AFREH JA

MRS AMEGATCHER FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APPLICANT.

MISS BOAFO FOR THE DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

[1996]DLCA540
																																						<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">BARCLAYS BANK (GH) LTD<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">GHANA CABLE CO LTD<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1995-96] 1 GLR 289<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>MRS AMEGATCHER FOR THE PLAINTIFF-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">

MISS BOAFO FOR THE
DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p>

WOOD, BADDOO AND AFREH JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF WOOD JA.<o:p></o:p>The applicant failed to comply with the conditions of appeal
imposed by the registrar of this court in respect of the appeal he had lodged
at the Supreme Court. He therefore filed this motion praying for an order
extending the time within which he may carry out these obligations.<o:p></o:p>But what started off as a simple motion for extension of time,
sparked off a controversy as to the court clothed with jurisdiction to hear and
determine such applications, namely applications for extension of time in which
to fulfill conditions of appeal pending in the Supreme Court.<o:p></o:p>The simple argument of the respondent’s counsel who raised the
preliminary objection is that by the very clear provisions of rule 19 (4) of
the Supreme Court Rules, 1970 (CI 13), the proper forum is the Supreme Court.
In other words that this court has no jurisdiction. On the other hand, the
basic arguments of the applicant’s counsel are that (1) the dictates of common
sense show that this court should be the proper court to hear and determine such
applications since these were imposed by no other person but the court’s own
registrar; and (2) In any event, rule 16(1) and (2) of CI 13 which regulates
the control of proceedings during the pendency of appeals would vest
jurisdiction in this court.<o:p></o:p>I find myself unable to agree with the applicant’s counsel for the
following reasons. The whole of rule 19 (1) and (2) of CI 13 spells out the
consequences of non-compliance with conditions of appeal, with the most serious
being that the court, and under the rules of interpretation of CI 13 this means
the Supreme Court, has power to dismiss the appeal simpliciter or for want of
jurisdiction as the case may be. Rule 19(3) of CI 13 however grants the court
power, upon application, to restore any such appeal dismissed by virtue of the
provisions under rule 19(1) and (2) of CI 13. Then significantly there is rule
19(4) of CI 13 which reads:<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) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this rule an
appellant may apply to the Court for an extension of time within which to
fulfil the conditions to be complied with in accordance with these Rules and
the Court may, for good and sufficient cause shown, grant an extension of time
subject to such conditions as the Court may impose.”<o:p></o:p>It is interesting to note that although the Court of Appeal has
similar rules such as we have under rule 19 (1)-(3) of CI 13 there is no
express provision such as we have under the rule 19(4) of CI 13 by which the
Supreme Court is empowered to extend time. The relevant rules of the Court of Appeal
may be found in rule 19 (1)-(3). In other words, the Court of Appeal rules stop
at subrule 3. I would not think it is a mere accident. Had the legislature
intended such an express provision for the Court of Appeal, I do not think it
would have lacked the moral courage nor the words to make provision for it. And
it is precisely because of the express provisions, ie rule 19 (4) of CI 13 that
I think that rule 16(1) and (2) of CI 13 is clearly inapplicable in our court
in applications of this kind. For rule 16 of CI 13 is a rule of general
application. But rule 19(4) of CI 13 is of specific application, ie it applies
to applications for extension of time within which to fulfil the conditions of
appeal. And, the general rule of law as we know it is that where there is a
specific legislation covering any given situation we do not apply general
provisions. I would thus sum up the position of the law as such:<o:p></o:p>Where an appellant, who has appealed to the Supreme Court seeks an
extension of time within which to fulfill the conditions of appeal imposed by
the registrar of the Court of Appeal, the court empowered to hear and determine
such an application is the Supreme Court and not the Court of Appeal. For these
reasons, I would uphold the preliminary objection and dismiss the motion.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
BADDOO JA.<o:p></o:p>