OPPONG vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND OTHERS [2000]DLSC506

Date	2000-02-23
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2000]DLSC506

BAMFORD-ADDO JSC

AMPIAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

ATUGUBA JSC

AKUFFO JSC

WARD-BREW FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

S Y ANIM FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND DEFENDANTS.

SAMUEL CODJOE FOR THE THIRD DEFENDANT.

AMBROSE DERY (WITH HIM TANKO AMADU) FOR THE FOURTH DEFENDANT

[2000]DLSC506
																																						<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">OPPONG<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">ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND OTHERS<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000] 2 GLR 402<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: 23
FEBRUARY 2000<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>WARD-BREW FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>S Y ANIM FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND DEFENDANTS.<o:p></o:p>SAMUEL CODJOE FOR THE THIRD DEFENDANT.<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">

AMBROSE DERY (WITH HIM TANKO
AMADU) FOR THE FOURTH DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

BAMFORD-ADDO, AMPIAH,
ADJABENG, ATUGUBA AND AKUFFO JJSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Bamford-Addo
JSC. <o:p></o:p>The plaintiff purported to invoke the original jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court under articles 2(1) and 130 of the Constitution, 1992 as well as
under rule 45 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (CI 16) by filing an affidavit
verifying the facts and particulars and also a statement of the plaintiff’s
case on 14 September 1999 without a writ. However, on 30 September 1999, he
filed a writ together with a supplementary affidavit in which he stated in
paragraphs (2)–(4) thereof 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">“(2) That on 14 September 1999, I filed an affidavit verifying the
facts and particulars, together with the statement of the plaintiff’s case but
inadvertently did not attach the writ to it.<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">(3) That I am filing the appropriate writ attached hereto to be
attached to the said affidavit verifying the facts and particulars together
with the statement of the plaintiff’s case. <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) That I pray that the writ will be attached to the said
documents.”<o:p></o:p>At the hearing, the defendants raised a preliminary objection to
the plaintiff’s action and applied for same to be struck out on the ground that
the plaintiff did not initiate any action as required by the mandatory
provision of rule 45(1) of CI 16 which 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">“45.1 Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, an action
brought to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Court shall be commenced by
a writ in the Form 27 set out in Part III of the Schedule to these Rules which
shall be signed by the plaintiff or his counsel,”<o:p></o:p>(The emphasis is mine.) Since the requirement in rule 45(1) of CI
16 were not complied with by the plaintiff, no action having been initiated by
a writ, the other documents, ie an affidavit and a statement of a case filed on
14 September 1999, were therefore of no consequence and same are null and void.
The plaintiff’s request in the supplementary affidavit filed on 30 September
1999, that the said invalid documents should be attached to the writ filed on
30 September 1999 is misconceived. It is not for the registrar of the court to
rectify any lapses in the filing of papers for parties which fail to comply
with rules of procedure; nor has he any power to do so. Neither can an invalid
and void document be resurrected and given life by attaching same to a later
valid document. The defendant’s submission that there is no case before the
court is therefore valid.<o:p></o:p>With regard to the writ filed on 30 September 1999, the plaintiff
should have complied with rule 46(1) and (3) of CI 16 after filing it. The said
rule 46(1) and (3) of CI 16 provides:<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">“46. (1) The plaintiff may file a statement of his case with the
writ, or shall in any case within fourteen days of the filing of the writ file
the statement of the case. <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">(3) Where the statement of the plaintiff’s case is not filed
within fourteen days </main>