RICHARD WORGBAH (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT) vs. GHANA ROBBER PRODUCTS LTD (DEFENDANT/APPELLANT) [2002]DLCA7506

RICHARD WORGBAH (PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT) vs. GHANA ROBBER PRODUCTS LTD (DEFENDANT/... [2002]DLCA7506

Date	2002-02-07
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.: 195/2000
Citation No.	[2002]DLCA7506

WOOD JA (PRESIDING)

FARKYE JA.

OWUSU ANSAH JA.

[2002]DLCA7506
																																						<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" >RICHARD
WORGBAH<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA ROBBER
PRODUCTS LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CIVIL APPEAL NO.: 195/2000 &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:7TH FEBRUARY 2002<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>WOOD,
JA (PRESIDING) FARKYE, JA. AND OWUSU ANSAH, JA.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;WOOD, JA. <o:p></o:p>I
agree with my learned brother that the appeal should succeed. The Respondent
endorsed his writ for a number of reliefs including "an order for
plaintiff's reinstatement or in lien ¢20 million compensation to be paid to the
plaintiff for his wrongful dismissal". <o:p></o:p>The
argument advanced in support of the additional ground (1) is that in so far as
the amount claimed as compensation exceeded the statutory limit of ¢10m as
provided for under S.41 of the Courts Act 1993, [Act 459], the Circuit Court
which tried the action lacked jurisdiction. The corrolary of this argument was
that the judgment was a nullity and must be vacated.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Respondent counsel has on the other hand given
four main reasons why this ground of appeal must fail. First, it was contented
that the ¢20m claim was merely an ancillary relief. But quite clearly, the
statutory limit of ¢10m applies to all personal actions arising under tort or
contract or actions for the recovery of liquidated sums. The act does not
stipulate either expressly or by necessary implication that ancillary reliefs
are nevertheless excluded, even though the amount claimed in respect of such
ancillary relief exceeds the statutory limit. It is indeed inconceivable that
any such exemptions would be created. In any case the relief as endorsed is not
an ancillary or secondary relief. It is alternate to the order for
reinstatement. <o:p></o:p>The
second argument is that both parties as well as the trial judge treated this
claim as one for general damages. Allied to this is, the third contention that
in any case, the compensation awarded at the conclusion of the trial, fell far
below the limit of the court's jurisdiction. These arguments, to my mind are
untenable. It is important that our courts keep within the limits of their
jurisdiction. Indeed, lack of jurisdiction is one of the most serious charges
that can be leveled against any court or tribunal. It is fundamental and
questions the authority of that court or tribunal to adjudicate on the matters
concerned, in this instant case, the claim by the respondent that he is
entitled to ¢20m by way of compensation for the wrong suffered. A plain reading
of the S.14 of Act 459, shows that what determines the circuit court's
jurisdiction is not the quantum of an award in any given case, but rather the
amount claimed as endorsed on the writ. Thus, even where the question of
jurisdiction is raised for the first time on appeal, the test remains the same.
It is not the quantum of damages eventually awarded, by the court but the
amount claimed in the action in contract, tort or for the recovery of the
liquidated sum. Where the amount so claimed is in excess of ¢10m, the court
lacked jurisdiction in the first place, notwithstanding the fact that it
awarded a lesser sum. The courts jurisdiction having been clearly subscribed by
statute the least the court could have done for the parties was to have raised
it so that with their express consent and properly recorded in the proceedings,
the court could have proceeded to determine the claim. As things stand now the
court erred in assuming jurisdiction as far as the relief for compensation is
concerned. <o:p></o:p>The
fourth and perhaps the more serious submission is that the appellant counsel
never considered the jurisdictional issue else he would have raised it at the
earliest opportunity, in the court below. I do agree that the interest of
parties are better served when jurisdictional issues are raised and dealt with
one way or the other, at the earliest opportunity.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The general rule is that points of law relied
on in appeal hearings, must be those raised at the trial and which were
wrongfully decided upon. Thus, an appellant ought not to be heard on question
of law which were open to him/her on the state of the pleadings but which he
failed to take advantage of. Our courts have however created exceptions to
these broad principles. Akuffo Addo v. Quanshie ldun [1968] GLR 667 AG Lavendoswky
and Base Group [1971] 2 GLR The more recent authority is Food Specialties Ltd
v. Ramia [1989-90] 2 GLR where Adade JSC said:—<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"I concede that this point was not taken
by either the appellant or the respondent. But as it is a point of law, this
court can take it any time notwithstanding the fact that it was not raised we
have done that many times in this court." <o:p></o:p>The
question of jurisdiction is yet another exception can be taken or raised even
on appeal Eboe v. Eboe [1961] 1 GLR 324.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The claim for ¢20m took this case out of the
jurisdiction of the court. Regrettably the proper step we <o:p></o:p>FARKYE,
JA. <o:p></o:p>This
judgment is in respect of an appeal against the judgment of the Circuit Court
Accra dated 16th day of May, 2000.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;In this suit, the plaintiff/respondent issued
out a writ of summons on 11/12/97 claiming against the Defendant/appellant the
following:—<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(1) An order of the Court declaring the
purported dismissal of the plaintiff a wrongful act.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(2) An order for Plaintiff's reinstatement or
in lien ¢20 million compensation to be paid to Plaintiff for his wrongful
dismissal.<o:p></o:p>