BENYARKO AND OTHERS vs. CENTRAL GHANA CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH [2002]DLCA1180

Date	2002-11-12
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2002]DLCA1180

LARTEY JA

AKAMBA JA

OSEI JA

NTRAKWA FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-APPLICANTS.

BEDIAKO FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS.

[2002]DLCA1180
																																						<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">BENYARKO AND OTHERS<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">CENTRAL GHANA CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2001-2002]
2 GLR 473<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: 12 NOVEMBER 2002<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>NTRAKWA
FOR THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-APPLICANTS.<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">

BEDIAKO
FOR THE PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT-RESPONDENTS.
<o:p></o:p>

LARTEY,
AKAMBA AND OSEI JJA<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Lartey JA. <o:p></o:p>This
is a preliminary point raised by the defendants-appellants-applicants
(hereinafter referred to as the applicants). On 21 February 2002 the applicants
filed a motion for an order to stay execution of this court’s judgment
delivered on 17 January 2002, pending the hearing and determination of an
appeal to the Supreme Court.<o:p></o:p>The
motion for stay came up for hearing on 3 October 2002 whereupon counsel for the
applicants, Mr Ntrakwa, raised his preliminary point for the determination of
the court. The preliminary point is premised on the issue of capacity of the
plaintiffs-respondent-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents).
In the words of counsel, “there is no corporate body called the Central Ghana
Conference of the Seventh Day Adventist Church” and that being the case, so the
argument goes, there is no respondent before this court.<o:p></o:p>Not
surprisingly, Mr Asare Bediako, counsel for the respondents, denied that they
lacked capacity to sue as contended by the applicants. He stated that the
respondents had been in existence for a very long time and that the issue of
capacity was the subject of a ruling by the lower court which considered it
unnecessary. If what Mr Bediako says was what transpired, one would have
expected the lower court’s decision on the question of capacity to have been a
subject for appeal. When the substantive appeal came before this court
(differently constituted) there was no indication that the applicants raised
this ground for consideration as a point of appeal. We sought to know why this
issue of capacity should be raised before us when our simple task was to
consider a motion for stay of execution filed by the applicants themselves. The
response was that the question of capacity can be raised at any time in the
course of litigation.<o:p></o:p>In
any case, since this is a preliminary objection to the hearing of the
applicants’ motion, the same must conform with the rules governing preliminary
objections. Rule 16 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (CI 19) requires the
filing of notice of preliminary objection to the hearing of an appeal. This
rule is clearly not applicable in the case before us, which is the hearing of a
motion. The practice relating to motions is that when the applicant attempts to
move his motion, all that counsel needs to do is to raise his objection orally.
There is thus no obligation to file a notice of preliminary objection in cases
other than appeals.<o:p></o:p>On
this point of preliminary objection we would like to cite with approval the
Gambian case of Kabo Airlines Ltd v The Sheriff Court of Appeal, Gambia, on 27
March 2002 unreported for its persuasive effect. Stating the purpose of raising
preliminary objections, Gelaga-King JA said 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">“Let
me say at once that the</main>