THE REPUBLIC vs. THE HIGH COURT, ACCRA EX-PARTE: EXPENDABLE POLYSTYRENE PRODUCTS LIMITED [2002]DLSC6447

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE HIGH COURT, ACCRA EX-PARTE: EXPENDABLE POLYSTYRENE PRODUCT... [2002]DLSC6447

Date	2002-07-24
Suit No.	CM NO. 21/2002
Citation No.	[2002]DLSC6447

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

KPEGAH J.S.C.

ADJABENG J.S.C.

ADZOE J.S.C.

AFREH J.S.C.

MRS. ALICE REINDORF CHINEBUAH FOR APPELLANT

MR. EDGAR ANSAH OBIRI FOR RESPONDENT

[2002]DLSC6447
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE HIGH COURT, ACCRA EX-PARTE: EXPENDABLE POLYSTYRENE PRODUCTS
LIMITED <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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<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>MRS. ALICE REINDORF CHINEBUAH FOR
APPELLANT. <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. EDGAR ANSAH OBIRI FOR
RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&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. ADZOE, J.S.C. AND AFREH, J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>MRS.
JOYCE BAMFORD-ADDO, J.S.C.: <o:p></o:p>This
is a motion invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, under
Article 132 of the Constitution for the Order of Certiorari directed to the
High Court Accra to quash its judgment given on 25th January 2002 in Suit
No.C398/7. <o:p></o:p>The
ground for this application is that: <o:p></o:p>“The
judgment is null and void because at the time it was given the six week period
prescribed by the rules for it to be delivered had elapsed.” The facts are that
the present applicant was Defendant in the High Court case Suit No. C898/97.
The plaintiff therein instituted an action against the applicant seeking the
following reliefs:— <o:p></o:p>a)
The export value of sea food assessed at FF.88,318,50 or its equivalent. <o:p></o:p>b)
Interest at the commercial bank lending rate calculated from the date of 1st
demand until the date of payment and <o:p></o:p>c)
Damages for breach of contract. <o:p></o:p>After
the hearing of evidence in the case had been completed, the plaintiff filed its
address on 8th December 1999 and Defendant also filed its address on 28th
January 2000. The case was then adjourned for judgment by the trial High Court
which was eventually delivered on the 25th January 2002 in favour of the
Plaintiff for all the reliefs sought. <o:p></o:p>According
to the applicant since the judgment was delivered almost 2 years after the
close of the case in the High Court, instead of the stipulated 6 weeks as
contained in Order 63 (2A) of L.N. 140A as amended by L.I 1107 the judgment is
null and void and ought to be so declared and quashed by certiorari. The
relevant rule relied on is L.I 1107 which amends Order 63 by adding rule 2A to
Order 63 as contained in the High Court (Civil Procedure) (Amendment) Rules
1977 L.I 1107. <o:p></o:p>Rule
2A is contained in S.7 of L.I. 1107 and states: <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 forth with inform the Chief
Justice in writing of that fact and shall state the reasons for the delay in so
delivering judgment and the date upon which it is proposed to deliver judgment.
<o:p></o:p>(6)
Where judgment has not been delivered within the period of six weeks referred
to in this rule, any party to the proceedings may in writing notify the Chief
Justice of that fact and request that a date be fixed for the delivery of
judgment. <o:p></o:p>(7)
Upon receiving a notification from the Court or a party under paragraph (5) or
(6) the Chief Justice may fix a date for the delivery of judgment by the Court
and notify the Court accordingly, and it shall be the duty of such Court to
ensure that judgment is delivered upon the date so fixed by the Chief Justice.”
<o:p></o:p>