GERTRUDE AGYEKUM & AMADU BABA vs. AMADU BABA & ALHAJI ABUBAKARI [2003]DLSC2386

Date	2003-01-15
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. 75/2002
Citation No.	[2003]DLSC2386

WIREDU CJ

ACQUAH JSC.

AKUFFO JSC

AFREH JSC

SETH TWUM JSC.

MR. ADUMUAH BOSSMAN FOR THE APPLICANT

MR. SOMUAH ASAMOAH FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

[2003]DLSC2386
																																						<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;;color:#2E75B6;mso-themecolor:accent1;
mso-themeshade:191;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor:
accent1;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%;mso-style-textfill-fill-colortransforms:
lumm=75000">GERTRUDE AGYEKUM &amp; AMADU BABA<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;color:#2E75B6;mso-themecolor:accent1;
mso-themeshade:191;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor:
accent1;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%;mso-style-textfill-fill-colortransforms:
lumm=75000">vs.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;color:#2E75B6;mso-themecolor:accent1;
mso-themeshade:191;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#2E75B6;mso-style-textfill-fill-themecolor:
accent1;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%;mso-style-textfill-fill-colortransforms:
lumm=75000">AMADU BABA &amp; ALHAJI ABUBAKARI<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL
MOTION NO. 75/2002<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:
15TH JANUARY 2003.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>MR.
ADUMUAH BOSSMAN 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">

MR.
SOMUAH ASAMOAH FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&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">

WIREDU,
CJ, ACQUAH, JSC., AKUFFO, JSC., AFREH, JSC, SETH TWUM, JSC.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>RULING<o:p></o:p>ACQUAH
JSC:<o:p></o:p>The
issue for determination in this ruling is whether or not a party’s statement of
case filed woefully out of time, can be permitted to be amended, especially
where the defaulting party has not asked for leave to rectify the default. But
first, the brief facts. <o:p></o:p>On
13th April 1981, the Plaintiff took action at the Accra High Court against the
Defendants, claiming as later amended:-<o:p></o:p>(a) “A declaration that in or about June/July
1979 she was the owner of all that piece or parcel of land situate at Madina
and known as&nbsp; House NO. B/MDN/14 and
fully described in the attached&nbsp; plan and
Deed Registered as No. 4446/1978.<o:p></o:p>(b) That the sale of the said property
by the 1st Defendant to the 2nd Defendant in June 1979 is null and void.<o:p></o:p>(c) General Damages”.<o:p></o:p>Later
on, one Osmanu Alhassan was joined as Co-plaintiff. On 14th August 1989, the
trial High Court dismissed the action with costs against the Plaintiff and
Co-plaintiff. An appeal to the Court of Appeal was also dismissed on 25th July
1995. A further appeal to the Supreme Court was once again dismissed on 17th
June 1998. Still undaunted the plaintiff and co-plaintiff filed a motion on 2nd
July 1998 for a review of the Supreme Court’s judgment. It is in respect of
this review application that the plaintiff and Co-plaintiff/Applicants now seek
leave to amend their statement of case. The basis of this application, as
outlined in paragraphs 3 to 6 of their supporting affidavit, is as follows:<o:p></o:p>“3. On 2nd July 1998 we filed a motion
for review of this Honourable&nbsp; Court’s
said judgment of 17th June 1998, a certified copy of which became available
only in late August 2001, whereupon we filed the written submission of our case
for review.<o:p></o:p>4. In our hurry to file our written
submission on time we omitted specifying the statutory basis of our case,
namely that this Court’s decision was given per incuriam of the vital section
93(2) of the Administration of Estates Act, 1961 (Act 63), and of the relevant
decided authorities on the effect of illegality.<o:p></o:p>5. We now specifically seek leave to
supply this omission by a proposed amendment of our said written submission
contained in the paper bearing the heading “Proposed Amendment of Written
Submission of Plaintiff and Co-plaintiff’s case for review”.<o:p></o:p>6. And we pray for leave accordingly.”<o:p></o:p>The
Defendants/Respondents resist the application on two grounds – first that there
is, in law, no statement of case by the applicants, to be amended, and secondly
the rules of the Supreme Court governing review application do not have
provisions permitting amendment of a party’s statement of case, and that the
grant of any such amendment has therefore been an exercise of the court’s
inherent jurisdiction. And since there is no properly filed statement of case,
this Court should not exercise his discretion in favour of the applicants.<o:p></o:p>Now
as to why there is no proper statement of case of the applicants, the
Defendants quote rule 56, and continue:<o:p></o:p>“1.2. On 2nd July 1998, the&nbsp; applicants filed a Notice of Motion for
Review (Civil Motion No. 49/98) with only an “….Affidavit in support of Review
Action”.<o:p></o:p>1.3. The Applicants did not file with
the application for a review a statement of their case as mandatorily required
under rule 56(1) of C.I. 16.<o:p></o:p>1.4 In fact the Applicants filed their
Statement of Case for Review well over 3 years after the motion and affidavit
in support for review had been filed, specifically on 17th September 2001.<o:p></o:p>1.5 The Applicants Statement of Case
for Review&nbsp; is therefore incompetent. It
is also not properly before the Court for an order amending it to be made by
this Honourable Supreme Court.”<o:p></o:p>