CELL TEL LIMITED vs. INTER IDEAL LIMITED [2006]DLCA6680

Date	2006-12-03
Suit No.	H3/24/06
Citation No.	[2006]DLCA6680

AKOTO-BAMFO JA [PRESIDING]

ASARE-KORANG JA

KANYOKE JA

[2006]DLCA6680
																																						<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" >CELL TEL LIMITED<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>INTER IDEAL LIMITED<o:p></o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL, 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">

H3/24/06&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 13TH MARCH, 2006<o:p></o:p>

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

AKOTO-BAMFO
JA [PRESIDING], ASARE-KORANG JA, KANYOKE JA<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;This is an application for an order relisting
an appeal struck out by this Court on the 18th January 2006. In urging the
Court to grant the order, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
record was voluminous; the sum awarded was huge and that since the order
barring the applicant from being appointed a Director for 4 years was draconian
there was need for this Court to allow the application for the merits of the
appeal to be gone into. <o:p></o:p>In
opposition, learned counsel for the respondent urged that contrary to
assertions of learned counsel that he was not involved in the trial at the High
Court, he indeed represented the applicant, declined to offer any evidence in
his defence; and did not file any written address. <o:p></o:p>According
to counsel, the present application was a ploy to frustrate the respondent;
since the applicant was in the habit of filing applications and thereafter
going to sleep.&nbsp; Learned counsel argued
that even though the Court below stayed execution of its own orders and Form 6
was served, the applicant characteristically went into a slumber and again
failed to prosecute the appeal even though this Court relisted the appeal. <o:p></o:p>After
carefully considering the submissions of both counsel we are of the view that
the application must be dismissed.&nbsp; For
it is our view that learned counsel did not offer any cogent reasons for the
delay, the fact that the record was voluminous cannot be the basis for the
grant of the application.&nbsp; Again the fact
that the sum awarded against him was huge per se, cannot be a factor to be
considered by the Court at this stage; we are of the view that the latter
reason should rather have nudged the applicant into acting timeously.&nbsp; Even though counsel intimated that there were
serious issues to be considered by the Appellate Court; it is our view that
sole factor should not weigh on this Court at this stage of the
proceedings.&nbsp; We are fortified in this
view by the holding in Gbewonyo Vrs. Adorkor [1994-95] GBLR p. 618 which indeed
is binding on us, being a decision of this Court.&nbsp; Again in Botchway Vrs. Appiah and Anor.
[2003-2004] SCGLR 137, the Supreme Court in a case which is on all fours with
the facts of this case, held that an application for extension of time would not
be granted as a matter of course and that in the absence of sound and
convincing reasons, the Court must decline such invitations. <o:p></o:p>We
do not think that the reasons adduced in the instant case meet test laid in the
Botchway case. <o:p></o:p>For
these reasons we do not feel able to grant the application. <o:p></o:p>It
is accordingly dismissed. <o:p></o:p>[Sgd] <o:p></o:p>V. AKOTO-BAMFO [MRS.] <o:p></o:p>JUSTICE OF APPEAL <o:p></o:p>A. ASARE-KORANG <o:p></o:p>JUSTICE OF APPEAL <o:p></o:p>S.E. KANYOKE <o:p></o:p>JUSTICE OF APPEAL<o:p></o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>