FRIMPONG AND ANOTHER vs NYARKO [1999]DLSC131

Date	1999-05-19
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1999]DLSC131

EDWARD WIREDU JSC

KPEGAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

ACQUAH JSC

AKUFFO JSC

E M EDUSEI FOR THE APPELLANTS

S K AMOFA FOR THE RESPONDENT

[1999]DLSC131
																																						<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">FRIMPONG AND ANOTHER<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">NYARKO<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 1 GLR 429<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">

</div>COUNSEL:E M EDUSEI FOR
THE APPELLANTSS K AMOFA FOR
THE RESPONDENT___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________CORAM:EDWARD WIREDU,
KPEGAH, ADJABENG, ACQUAH AND AKUFFO JJSC___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________JUDGMENT OF EDWARD WIREDU JSC.<o:p></o:p>The matter before us to which this opinion relates is supposed to
be an appeal against an interlocutory order of the judicial committee of the
National House of Chiefs. The main issue raised for consideration by the court
is whether the petitioners in this case, who are complaining to be aggrieved by
that decision, have taken all the necessary steps as required by law to entitle
them to a hearing<o:p></o:p>To answer the above question, it must first be appreciated that
the right to appeal against a decision of any lower court is conferred by
statute. In other words, the right to appeal is not inherent in any litigant.
It is a right conferred by statute. In like manner, a court’s jurisdiction to
hear and determine an appeal is provided by statute. In Nye v Nye [1967] GLR 76
at 82-83, CA Akufo-Addo CJ liud this to say: “It must be appreciated that there
is no right of appeal in a litigant; nor is there an inherent power in any
court to hear appeals.” In the case of Moore v Taye (1934) 2 WACA 43 at 45 Lord
Arkin wrote:<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">“. . . is to be remembered that all appeals in this country and
elsewhere exist merely by statute and unless the statutory conditions are
fulfilled no jurisdiction is given to any Court of Justice to entertain them.”<o:p></o:p>Lastly, in Sandema Nab v Asangalisa [1996-97] 302 at 307, the
Supreme Court had this to say per Acquah JSC:<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">“Now it must be appreciated that an appeal is a creature of
statute . . . where a right of appeal is conferred as of right or with leave or
with special leave, the right is to be exercised within the four corners of
that statute and the relevant procedural regulations, as a court will not have
jurisdiction to grant deviations outside the parameters of that statute.”<o:p></o:p>In the instant case, the right to appeal from any decision of the
judicial committee of the National House of Chiefs lies to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court derives its jurisdiction to hear appeals of this nature
statutorily from the Constitution, 1992. The relevant provisions are: (a)
article 131(4) of the Constitution, 1992 which provides that: “(4) An appeal
from a decision of the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs shall
lie to the Supreme Court with the leave of that Judicial Committee or the
Supreme Court;” (b) article 273 (1) of the Constitution, 1992 and section 44 of
the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459). Quite apart from the requirements of the
statutory provisions referred to above, there are also rules and regulations
governing the procedure for bringing an appeal properly before this court.<o:p></o:p>In the instant case the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (CI 16) is
pertinent. It provides clear and unambiguous regulations which have to be
complied with. These regulations are of two kinds: those that are fundamental
and form the basic foundation or the substratum of the appeal and those that
can be described as mere irregularities or technicalities. It is the rules in
the former category which when duly complied with, confer jurisdiction on the
court. In other words, this Supreme Court can only be seised with jurisdiction
to hear an appeal when the appellant has fully complied with the former
category of rules of practice which regulate the bringing of an appeal: see
Merah v Okrah [1984-86] 1 GLR 400 at 410.<o:p></o:p>The rules relevant to the present matter before us are rules 6(1),
7(1) and 7(3) and 8(1)(a) and 8(3) of CI 16 which provide that:<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">“6. (1) Any appeal to the Court in a civil cause or matter shall
be brought by notice of appeal in the Form I set out in Part I of the Schedule
to these Rules and shall be filed with the Registrar of the Court below . . . <o:p></o:p>