OPANIN KWEKU ANSAH & ORS. vs. SETH MENSAH ATSEM & ORS. [2002]DLSC2381

Date	2002-07-24
Suit No.	CM NO. 38/2002
Citation No.	[2002]DLSC2381

MRS BAMFORD-ADDO J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

KPEGAH J.S.C.

ADJABENG J.S.C

ADZOE J.S.C

AFREH J.S.C.

MR. EBOW DAWSON FOR APPLICANT.

MR. SAMUEL DZIGBA FOR THE RESPONDENTS.

[2002]DLSC2381
																																						<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" >OPANIN KWEKU ANSAH &amp; ORS.<o:p></o:p>&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; vs.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>SETH MENSAH ATSEM &amp; ORS.<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>CM
NO. 38/2002<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">

DATE: 24TH JULY, 2002.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>MR.
EBOW DAWSON FOR 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">

MR.
SAMUEL DZIGBA FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp; <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">

MRS
BAMFORD-ADDO, J.S.C. (PRESIDING), KPEGAH, J.S.C., ADJABENG, J.S.C., ADZOE,
J.S.C., AFREH, J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>RULING<o:p></o:p>JOYCE
BAMFORD-ADDO J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>This
is an application for special leave by Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellants to
enable them to&nbsp; Appeal to the Supreme
Court against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 23rd July 1998 in the
above-mention case.<o:p></o:p>This
application is made under Article 131(2) of the Constitution and Rule 7(4) of
C.I. 16.<o:p></o:p>Even
though the normal time limited for Appeal from a decision of the Court of
Appeal in civil matters is 90 days under rule 8(b) of C.I. 16, in this case
applicants having run out of time have now come to this Court to ask for
special leave to appeal almost 4 years after the judgment of the Court of
Appeal sought to be appealed was given By:<o:p></o:p>“Article 131(2) Notwithstanding clause
(1) of this Article the Supreme Court may entertain an application for special
leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in any cause or matter, civil or, criminal
and may grant leave accordingly.”<o:p></o:p>See
also the provisions of Rule 7(4) of C.I. 16 to similar effect. The power to
grant special&nbsp; leave by this court is
discretionary and is granted only in certain special circumstances in the
interest of Justice.<o:p></o:p>This
motion was filed on 4/6/2002 and is support by affidavit dated 3rd June
2002.&nbsp; The Court of Appeal’s judgment
dated 23/7/1998 was delivered almost 4 years ago. <o:p></o:p>The
long delay in prosecuting an appeal in this court was laid at the door of the
various Lawyers of the Applicants who made mistakes as to the proper-procedure
or proper leave to obtain before filing appeal to this Court.&nbsp; Further applicants attacked the said judgment
as erroneous on a number of issues which according to them has occasioned a
miscarriage of justice on these&nbsp; grounds
they argued that they be granted special leave. The applicants’ application was
opposed by the Respondent on the ground that no good reasons have been
demonstrated to enable them to obtain special leave.<o:p></o:p>The
brief facts of this case are that the&nbsp;
plaintiffs now applicants herein, sued the Defendant now Respondent at
the Circuit Court for the following reliefs i.e. for <o:p></o:p>a)
The sum of One hundred thousand cedis ¢100,000 for trespass to plaintiffs and
known as Bortogina land.<o:p></o:p>b)
Perpetual Injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and
licencees from committing further acts of trespass on the said Bortogina land.<o:p></o:p>At
the end of the trial at the Circuit Court judgment was given on 1st day of
September 1995 for the Plaintiffs. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the
Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed the Appeal and set
aside the Judgment of the Circuit Court on 23rd July, 1998.<o:p></o:p>After
the judgment on 23/7/1998 the applicants appointed a new Lawyer who filed
Appeal to the Court on 18/8/98 without first obtaining the leave of the Court
of Appeal as required by Article 131(b) of the Constitution. Nothing happened
again until leave to withdraw appeal filed on 18/8/98 was granted&nbsp; by this Court on 5/3/2002 with costs.<o:p></o:p>Therefore
counsel went back to the Court of Appeal to ask for an order extending time for
him to file appeal which was dismissed. The reason for this refusal by the
Court of Appeal is as follows:-<o:p></o:p>“ The application fails for the simple
reason that it does not satisfy the constitutional requirement that the
applicant demonstrates that the appeal raises substantial point in law or
concerns a matter of public interest. Application is consequently dismissed”.<o:p></o:p>The
applicants then filed an application under Article 131(2) of the Constitution
for special leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal given 4 years
earlier dated 23rd July 1998 on the grounds already referred to above.&nbsp; These are contained in paragraphs 15 and
16&nbsp; of the affidavit in support of the
motion of applicants namely:<o:p></o:p>“15. That I am informed and believe
the same to be true that the mistakes of the Counsel ought not to be visited on
parties and that the only way left for us to appeal to this Honourable Court
for special leave to the Supreme Court and the long delay should not be laid at
our doorstep.<o:p></o:p>