SADHWANI vs. AL-HASSAN [1999]DLCA474

Date	1999-10-20
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1999]DLCA474

WOOD JA

BROBBEY JA

ARYEETEY JA

PHILIP ADDISON FOR THE PLAINTIFF-APELLANT

KOFI KUMADO FOR THE DEFENDANT –RESPONDENT.

[1999]DLCA474
																																						<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">SADHWANI<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">AL-HASSAN<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 1 GLR 19<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: 20
OCTOBER 1999<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<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">

PHILIP ADDISON FOR THE
PLAINTIFF-APELLANT<o:p></o:p>

KOFI KUMADO FOR THE DEFENDANT
–RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <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">

WOOD, BROBBEY sic (1) AND
ARYEETEY JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT OF WOOD JA.<o:p></o:p>On 14 March 1997, the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred to
as the appellant) sued the defendant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the
respondent) for the sum of £8,995 said to represent the balance outstanding on
money lent to her and interest thereon.<o:p></o:p>An application for summary judgment submitted after the respondent
had duly filed a defence and counterclaim was dismissed by the learned trial
judge on the ground that the respondent’s defence raises triable issues. Not
being satisfied with this decision, the appellant appealed to us in this court
on two grounds, the first being the original ground viz:<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">“The trial judge erred in law in dismissing the plaintiff’s
application for summary judgment on the grounds that the defendant-respondent’s
response raises triable issues when there was before the court, the
defendant-respondent’s uncontroverted undertaking admitting the sum owed to the
plaintiff-appellant, which error of law has occasioned the plaintiff appellant
a substantial miscarriage of justice.”<o:p></o:p>Before dealing with the substantive grounds of appeal, I would
like to address an important preliminary issue raised by the respondent’s
counsel. Counsel contends, and rightly so in my view, that under rule 20(1) of
the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (CI 19) the appellant had 21 days of being
notified that the record was ready, within which to file a written submission
of his case. The further argument is that since in the instant case, he filed
his case not within the stipulated period but several weeks after the said
notification, this appeal ought not to be entertained, as the same by operation
of law, is deemed under rule 20(1) of CI 19 to have been struck out. On my
part, the rather difficult question is, whether if this objection must be
upheld, the appeal ought to be dismissed in limine and the appellant asked to
take the necessary steps to have the said appeal restored and disposed of on
the merits. I would not choose this option.<o:p></o:p>Although by the provision of rule 20(1) of CI 19, where an
appellant breaches the rule, the appeal is without more considered or deemed to
have been struck out, the same rule imposes a mandatory duty, albeit an
administrative duty, on the registrar to inform the parties accordingly of the
state of the pending appeal. The importance of the registrar’s compliance with
this rule cannot be overemphasised. I believe it is intended to instruct the
parties of the state of the appeal, to enable each party pursue his or her
rights as exists thereunder. So for example the errant “appellant” may quickly
run to the court and pray for an extension of time within which to comply with
the rules in question.<o:p></o:p>Again, although the respondent’s counsel does not so expressly
state, the point raised is clearly in the nature of a preliminary objection.
That being so, counsel is obliged under the rules of court, as provided for
under rule 16 of CI 19 to give three clear days notice before the hearing of
the objection. Additionally, he is also required to set out the grounds of
objection as in the notice specified in Form 8 in Part 1 of the Schedule to CI
19. The rule is clearly so self-explanatory, I would reproduce it. It
stipulates:<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">“(1) A respondent who intends to rely upon a preliminary objection
to the hearing of the appeal shall give the appellant three clear days notice
before the hearing of the preliminary objection, setting out the grounds of
objection, and shall file the notice specified in Form 8 in Part I of the
Schedule together with five copies of the appeal with the Registrar within the same
time.”<o:p></o:p>Now, a respondent who fails to comply with rule 16(2) of CI 19 may
be met with any one of these three consequences. In other words, the court has
three options with the third giving the court a fairly wide choice of other
orders to make. It 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">“(2) If the respondent fails to comply with this rule, the Court
may refuse to entertain the objection or may adjourn the hearing at the cost of
the respondent or may make such other order as it thinks fit.”<o:p></o:p>