GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION vs. GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK (GHANA) LTD. [2004]DLCA6463

GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION vs. GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK (GHANA)... [2004]DLCA6463

Date	2004-06-23
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.: H3-276-2004
Citation No.	[2004]DLCA6463

OMARI-SASU J.A. (PRESIDING)

ANIM J.A.

KUSI-APPOUCH (MRS) J.A

NOVOR FOR THE APPLICANTS

DR. EKOW DANIELS FOR THE RESPONDENTS

[2004]DLCA6463
																																						<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" >GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS/
RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA COMMERCIAL BANK (GHANA) LTD.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/
APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>CIVIL
APPEAL NO.: H3-276-2004&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; DATE: 23RD JUNE, 2004<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>

NOVOR
FOR THE APPLICANTS <o:p></o:p>

DR.
EKOW DANIELS FOR THE RESPONDENTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>OMARI-SASU J.A. (PRESIDING), ANIM J.A., KUSI-APPOUCH
(MRS) J.A<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;border:none;
mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;OMARI-SASU,
J.A.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;After dismissing the
defendant-Judgment-Debtors-Application for Stay of Execution of our ruling
given on February 27, 2004 and March 12, 2004 we adjourned our reasons till
today. These are now given hereunder.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The said application for stay of execution
made by the defendants/Applicants (to be henceforth referred to simply as the
Applicant) was preceded by a Notice of Appeal filed on March 15, 2004 the
ground of which states:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"The Court (of Appeal) erred<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"When it held that because the defendants
did not plead "internal mechanism"<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"Even though Plaintiffs pleaded facts
that clearly showed that there had been "Internal mechanisms" and
made some of those facts issues set down for trial the defendants could not
rely on "internal mechanisms" <o:p></o:p>The present application
was vehemently opposed by the Plaintiffs Judgment-creditors
Respondents-Applicants.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Respondents (who shall henceforth be referred
to simply as the Respondents)<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;On the grounds that the Application was the
same in scope and content as the one which was earlier dismissed and that the
application was incompetent as it offends against Rule 8(6) of the Court of
Appeal Rules CA 19 of 1997 and lastly it was an abuse of the legal process.
We have upheld the opposition by the Respondents on the main ground that the
application is incompetent. The Applicants appear to have been confused about
the effects of a voluntary and unequivocal submission to judgment in a civil
case and this confusion has lead them to embark upon the many interlocutory
applications they have made in this court since they submitted to judgment.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The legal effects of a submission to judgment
in a civil case by a party was stated by our Supreme Court - Per Wiredu J.S.C.
(as he then was) in their majority decision in the case of GWIRA V. STATE
INSURANCE CORPORATION [1991] 1 GLR 398 at 41 as follows:—<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;"By submitting to judgment in the way he
did, not only did he shut himself out for ever from complaining about any
procedural irregularities, defects and other faults in the claim culminating in
the judgment under which the sale was conducted but he also shut himself out
for ever from raising a fresh action or any of the legal defences which
were available and which could have been raised before the court. As things
stand now, he has acquiesced in leading the court to accept his liability to
the claim brought against him. He should not be entitled to raise legal issues
as if he is on appeal against the judgment he submitted to"
(Emphasis is ours).<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The above decision is both relevant to our
case and is also binding on us. At least two lessons must be learnt from it and
these are that: <o:p></o:p>(i)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
Where a party voluntarily and unequivocally
submits to judgment in a civil case which is not heard on the merits as our
present case is, the party is estopped per rem judicataim from instituting a
fresh action on the same facts and on the same subject matter. <o:p></o:p>(ii)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;The
party is precluded from doing any act or taking any step that may prevent the
winning party from enjoying the fruits of the judgment or victory. <o:p></o:p>In
our case we observe with regret that the Applicants are by their conduct
engaged in what we may term "wait till Doomsday for your
entitlements" tactics for the sole purpose of preventing the respondents
from ever enjoying the fruits of the judgment.<o:p></o:p>