IMBEAH AND ANOTHER vs. ABABIO [2000]DLSC324

Date	2000-07-12
Suit No.	DLSC324
Citation No.	[2000]DLSC324

BAMFORD-ADDO JSC

AMPIAH JSC

KPEGAH JSC

ATUGUBA JSC

AKUFFO JSC

JAMES AHENKORA FOR THE APPLICANTS.

EBOW DAWSON FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2000]DLSC324
																																						<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">IMBEAH 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">ABABIO<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 2 GLR 295<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:JAMES AHENKORA
FOR THE APPLICANTS.EBOW DAWSON FOR
THE RESPONDENT.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________CORAM:BAMFORD-ADDO,
AMPIAH, KPEGAH, ATUGUBA AND AKUFFO JJSC___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Bamford-Addo JSC. <o:p></o:p>The applicants herein filed a motion on notice for “special leave”
to appeal to the Supreme Court on 9 June 1999, which was later amended with the
leave of the court to read motion on notice for “leave” to appeal.<o:p></o:p>The judicial committee of the Central Regional House of Chiefs
gave a decision for the respondent herein in a chieftaincy case. The
applicants, aggrieved by the said judgment, appealed to the judicial committee
of the National House of chiefs, which said tribunal upheld the decision of the
Central Regional House on 21 February 1997. The applicants, being dissatisfied
with the said decision of the National House of Chiefs, applied to the tribunal
for leave to enable them to appeal to the Supreme Court, which application was
refused on 5 November 1997. Instead of repeating the application for leave to
the Supreme Court, the applicants filed a motion for review of the said refusal
to grant leave to the National House of Chiefs but that application was also
dismissed on 2 June 1999.<o:p></o:p>On 9 June 1999, the applicants filed a motion to the Supreme Court
for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the decision of the judicial
committee of the National House of Chiefs, which is at present before us. Under
articles 131(4) and 273(1) of the Constitution, 1992 a decision of the judicial
committee of the National House of Chiefs lies to the Supreme Court with leave
of the National House of Chiefs or the Supreme Court. This is repeated in
section 4(4) of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459). Rule 30 of the Supreme Court
Rules, 1996 (CI 16), provides as follows:<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">“30. The provisions of these Rules relating to civil appeals
shall, with such modifications as the Court may determine, apply to the hearing
by the Court of an appeal from the National House of Chiefs brought to the
Court under clause (4) of article 131 or clause (1) of article 273 of the
Constitution.”<o:p></o:p>The relevant rule which applies to this case is rule 7(1) of CI
16, which provides as follows:<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">“7 (1) An application for leave to appeal under paragraph (b) of
clause (1) of article 131 of the Constitution shall be by motion on notice in
the Form 2 set out in Part 1 of the Schedule to these Rules and shall be filed
with the Registrar of the court below within fourteen days of the date of the
decision against which leave to appeal is sought.”<o:p></o:p>(The emphasis is mine.)<o:p></o:p>In the case of Sandema-Nab v Asangalisa [1996-97] SC GLR 302, it
was unanimously held (as stated in holding (1)) 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">“the application filed on 16 February 1996 at the National House
of Chiefs for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against its decision given
on 25 May 1995, had been properly dismissed as hopelessly out of time-not
having been filed within fourteen days from the date of the decision complained
of as required by rule 7(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1970 (CI 13). The
instant application for extension of time was also filed out of time-not having
been filed within fourteen days from the date the National House of Chiefs
refused to grant leave as required by rule 7(2) of CI 13.”<o:p></o:p>The said case was dealt with under rule 7(1) of the Supreme Court
Rules, 1970 (CI 13) which rule is applicable to the </main>