P. S. INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & ORS. vs. GODKA GROUP OF COMPANIES [2002]DLSC2382

Date	2002-07-24
Suit No.	CA NO. 12/2000
Citation No.	[2002]DLSC2382

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

KPEGAH J.S.C

ADJABENG J.S.C.

ATUGUBA J.S.C

AFREH J.S.C.

DR. A.Q.A. ARCHAMPONG FOR RESPONDENT.

MR. DJABANOR FOR THE APPELLANT.

[2002]DLSC2382
																																						<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" >P. S. INTERNATIONAL LIMITED &amp; ORS.<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GODKA GROUP OF COMPANIES<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>CA
NO. 12/2000<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>DR.
A.Q.A. ARCHAMPONG FOR RESPONDENT.<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.
DJABANOR FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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., ATUGUBA,
J.S.C., AFREH, J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>AFREH,
J.S.C.:<o:p></o:p>This
is an Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 15th April, 1999
dismissing the Appellant’s appeal against the decision of the High Court dated
17th May, 1995.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant relied on and argued eight grounds of appeal. But they can reduced to
three main grounds:<o:p></o:p>(i)
That the judgments of the High Court and the Court of Appeal were null and void
because they were delivered after the statutory periods within which they
should have been given.<o:p></o:p>(ii)
That the Court of Appeal erred in treating as evidence two invoices attached to
the statement of claim.<o:p></o:p>(iii)
That the Court of Appeal erred in holding that lawyer Archampong had capacity
to institute proceedings on behalf of the plaintiffs as plaintiffs’ attorney.<o:p></o:p>The
claim of the plaintiff (plaintiffs) was for <o:p></o:p>(a)
The sum of USD 50,733.90 being balance of debt due and owing by the defendants
to the plaintiff in respect of two separate merchantile transactions.<o:p></o:p>(b)
Interest on the said amount at commercial or bank rate with effect from 1st
January, 1988 to the date of judgment.<o:p></o:p>The
defendants also counter-claimed from the plaintiffs rent at the rate of
¢25,000.00 per year from 31st October, 1987.<o:p></o:p>According
to the plaintiffs, who were a firm of international traders in the U.S.A., on
2nd September, 1987 they conveyed and sold to the defendants by sea freight, a
consignment of 38,491 pairs of used olive green shorts at the price of USD 1.20
a pair, 25 pairs of soccer boots at USD 1.00 a pair, bringing the total price
of the goods to USD 46,214.20. Also, on 5th October 1989, they sold and
conveyed to the defendants, 1280 cartons of sundry biscuits valued at USD
15,208. As at the time plaintiffs instituted the instant action the defendants
had paid USD 20,088 of the total value of the goods and later USD 4,000.<o:p></o:p>The
Defendants did not dispute the plaintiffs’ claim relating to the second
consignment of goods, but they contended the first consignment of used olive
green shorts was not sold to them but sent to them on sell-or-return basis and
therefore they remain the property of the plaintiffs and were being kept in the
defendants’ warehouse at ¢25,000 per year. The main issue between the parties
was, therefore, whether the first consignment of goods was sold to the
defendants or not; that is whether or not the goods, the subject-matter of the
claim were sold to the defendants outright or sold to them on sell-or-return
basis.<o:p></o:p>In
their first ground of appeal the defendants contend that the court of Appeal
erred in holding that the provisions of Order 63 Rule 2A of the High Court
(Civil Procedure) Rules 1954 (L.N. 140A) as amended by L.I 1107 are purely
administrative (or directory) and its infringement by a Court will not render a
judgment null and void. They also contend, that the judgment of the Court of
Appeal is null and void, having been given on 15th April, 1999 a few days after
eight weeks after close of case contrary to Rule 33 sub-rules 1 and 2 of the
Court of Appeal Rules, 1997, C.I. 19.<o:p></o:p>The
two grounds of appeal are considered together because they raise the same
issues.<o:p></o:p>Order
63 r. 2A of L.N. 140A provides:<o:p></o:p>“2A (1) At the close of a case before
it the Court shall fix a date, which shall be not later than six weeks after
the close of that case, for the delivery of judgment therein. <o:p></o:p>(2) It shall be the duty of the Court
to deliver judgment as soon as possible after the close of each case before it,
and in any event not later than six weeks after the close of any such case.<o:p></o:p>(3) For the purposes of this rule a
case shall be deemed to be closed when the evidence has been given to the Court
and the speeches subsequent thereto have been concluded.<o:p></o:p>(4) The times of the vacations in any
year shall not be reckoned in the computation of the period of six weeks
referred to in this rule.<o:p></o:p>(5) Where for any reason judgment has
not been delivered within the period of six weeks referred to in this rule, the
Court shall fort</main>