BEN K. KUMA vs. MESSRS EAST COAST FISHERIES [1999]DLSC6155

Date	1999-02-10
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO.69/98
Citation No.	[1999]DLSC6155

EDWARD WIREDU J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

KPEGAH J.S.C.

ADJABENG J.S.C.

ACQUAH J.S.C.

MS. AKUFFO J.S.C.

MR. AWERE AWUKU FOR THE APPLICANT.

MR. SETH MATANAWUI FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1999]DLSC6155
																																						<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" >BEN K. KUMA <o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MESSRS EAST COAST
FISHERIES<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<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">

CIVIL MOTION NO.69/98&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 10TH FEBRUARY, 1999.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MR. AWERE AWUKU 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">

MR.
SETH MATANAWUI FOR THE 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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">EDWARD
WIREDU J.S.C. (PRESIDING), KPEGAH J.S.C., ADJABENG J.S.C., ACQUAH J.S.C., MS.
AKUFFO J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</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="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:
none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;
mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>SOPHIA
A.B. AKUFFO, J.S.C.: <o:p></o:p>A
brief summary of the background of this application will suffice to place the
matter in its proper perspective. Furthermore, in this ruling, we intend to
rely upon the record of appeal in Civil Appeal No. 5/98 to enable us deal
effectively with the issues arising herein. <o:p></o:p>On
June 24th 1991, the Respondent obtained Summary Judgement in suit number
2075/90, against East Coast Fisheries Limited and the Applicant (the Managing
Director of the Company), for the recovery of a trade debt arising from the
supply of fish to the Company. Subsequent to the summary judgement, the Company
and the Applicant, by a motion filed on July 19th, 1991, applied to the High
Court for orders staying execution of and setting aside the summary judgement,
which application was dismissed on July 15th 1992. In that application, the
Applicant herein and the 1st Defendant challenged the amount adjudged as owing.
Furthermore, the Applicant herein, for the first time in the suit, raised the
issue of whether or not she was a proper party to the suit. The Applicant, (not
the Company) appealed to the Court of Appeal for the Summary Judgement and the
said subsequent ruling to be set aside on the main ground that the appellant
was not a proper party to the suit. The Court of Appeal by a majority decision
dated May 30th 1996 denied the appeal. The Applicant, therefore, appealed to
this Court in Civil Appeal No. 5/98. Before this Court could deliver judgement
on the appeal, however, the Applicant filed the present application. <o:p></o:p>By
this motion, the Applicant seeks leave of the Court to call further evidence in
her appeal before the delivery of the Court's judgement. The notice of motion
indicates that the same was being brought under Rules 5, 16, 23(1) &amp; (3)
and 53 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (CI 16), and the Applicant is praying
this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. <o:p></o:p>Without
doubt, the rules of procedure cited by Counsel for the Applicant, as the bases
for the application, are wholly inappropriate for the purpose sought to be
achieved. Rule 5 relates to the power of the Court to prescribe practice and
procedures in those instances where CI 16 makes no express provisions therefor.
Rule 16 relates to the control of proceedings, during the pendency of an
appeal, after the transmission of the record of appeal to this Court. Rule 23
governs the general powers of the Court in the management of appeals before it
and Rule 53 fails under the original jurisdiction of the Court and deals with
the applicable procedure in matters wherein such jurisdiction is invoked. <o:p></o:p>However,
it is quite clear that what the Applicant seeks to achieve by this application
is to be permitted to adduce evidence which does not form part of the record of
appeal before the Court. This is therefore, an application for leave to adduce
fresh evidence. Far from failing within the inherent jurisdiction of the Court,
such an application is fully and specifically catered for by Rule 76 of CI 16,
sub-rules (1) and (2) of which read as follows:— <o:p></o:p>"(1)
A party to an appeal before the Court shall not be entitled to adduce new
evidence in support of his original action unless the Court, in the interest of
justice, allows or requires new evidence relative to the issue before the Court
to be adduced.<o:p></o:p>"(2)
No such evidence shall be allowed unless the Court is satisfied that with due
diligence or enquiry the evidence could not have been and was not available to
the party at the hearing of the original action to which it relates." <o:p></o:p>Thus,
it is quite clear that the presentation of new evidence on appeal is not as of</main>