REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE CONTINENTAL CARGO AND TRADE SERVICES INC [2002]DLSC1245

REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE CONTINENTAL CARGO AND TRADE SERVICES IN... [2002]DLSC1245

Date	2002-07-24
Suit No.
Citation No.	[2002]DLSC1245

BAMFORD-ADDO JSC

KPEGAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

ADJOE JSC

AFREH JSC

JUSTINA TETE-DONKOR (MISS) (WITH HER TAGOE AND JOSEPH MANTEY) FOR THE APPLICANT.

ADDO ATUAH FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY.

[2002]DLSC1245
																																						<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">REPUBLIC<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">HIGH COURT, ACCRA; EX PARTE CONTINENTAL CARGO AND TRADE SERVICES
INC<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[2001-2002]
1 GLR 72<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">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>JUSTINA
TETE-DONKOR (MISS) (WITH HER TAGOE AND JOSEPH MANTEY) 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">

ADDO
ATUAH FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY. <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">

BAMFORD-ADDO,
KPEGAH, ADJABENG, ADJOE AND AFREH JJSC<o:p></o:p>

</div>JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>Afreh JSC. <o:p></o:p>Delivered
the ruling of the court. This is an application for an order of certiorari
directed to the High Court, Accra presided over by Gyamera-Tawiah J, to quash
its judgment given on 29 January 2001 in the suit entitled Jupiter Airlines v
Continental Cargo and Trade Services Inc, High Court, Accra, 29 January 2001,
unreported. The only ground for the application is that: “The judgment is null
and void because the court lacked jurisdiction in the suit the subject matter
of this application.” The main reason for this contention is that both the
plaintiff and the defendant in the suit sought to be quashed were outside the
jurisdiction of the court and the alleged contract for sale, as well as the
subject matter of the sale, an aeroplane, also were all outside the
jurisdiction and had no connection with Ghana.<o:p></o:p>The
interested party has raised a preliminary objection to the application. His
reason is that the application is woefully out of time: the judgment sought to
be quashed was delivered on 29 January, 2001; and the instant application was
filed on 15 May 2002, some fifteen months later. Rule 62 of the Supreme Court
Rules, 1996 (CI 16) requires that an application to invoke the supervisory
jurisdiction of the court must be filed within 90 days of the date of the
decision sought to be quashed.<o:p></o:p>The
applicant’s answer to the preliminary objection is that since the decision of
the High Court was a nullity it can be set aside at any time.<o:p></o:p>In
applications for an order of certiorari, lawyers for applicants are fond of
saying:<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">“If
an act is void, then it is in law a nullity. It is not only bad but incurably
bad. There is no need for an order of the court to set it aside. It is
automatically null and void without more ado, though it is sometimes convenient
to have the court declare it to be so. And every proceeding which is founded on
it is also bad and incurably bad. You cannot put something on nothing and
expect it to stay there. It will collapse.”<o:p></o:p>See
Macfoy v United Africa Co Ltd [1962] AC 152 at 160, PC; Mosi v Bagyina [1963] 1
GLR 337 at 346–347, SC and Republic v High Court, Accra; Ex parte Darke XII
[1992-93] GBR 1138 at 1168, SC.<o:p></o:p>This
is an impeccable statement of a common law principle. But it contains a logical
difficulty where the proponent has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction or
other jurisdiction of the court conferred by statute, since unless an order of
a competent court is obtained there is no way of establishing the nullity of
the order or the judgment. A decision of a court is presumed to be valid until
i</main>