NANA OPOKU AKWAA II AND 4 OTHERS vs. RICHARD EBO ANNAN HAGAN AND ADWOA NYARKOA [2007]DLSC6750

Date	2007-11-21
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J8/43/2007
Citation No.	[2007]DLSC6750

ATUGUBA J.S.C.(PRESIDING)

DR. DATE-BAH J.S.C.

PROF. OCRAN J.S.C.

ANSAH J.S.C.

ANINAKWAH J.S.C.

MR. JAMES AHENKORAH FOR APPLICANT

MR. RICHARD AMAMOO FOR RESPONDENT.

[2007]DLSC6750
																																						<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" >NANA OPOKU AKWAA II AND 4 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/
APPLICANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>RICHARD EBO ANNAN
HAGAN AND ADWOA NYARKOA<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS /RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><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">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL
MOTION NO. J8/43/2007 &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: 21ST NOVEMBER, 2007<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR. JAMES AHENKORAH FOR 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. RICHARD AMAMOO 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">

ATUGUBA J.S.C.(PRESIDING), DR.
DATE-BAH J.S.C., PROF. OCRAN J.S.C., ANSAH J.S.C., ANINAKWAH 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>ATUGUBA,
J.S.C. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The applicants were some of the petitioners in
a chieftaincy case in the Central Region House of Chiefs. Their capacity to
continue with the action was challenged unsuccessfully before that trial
tribunal. However on appeal the National House of Chiefs allowed it by a 4-1
decision and dismissed the action. <o:p></o:p>The
applicants then appealed to this court. However upon receipt by counsel of his
clients, copy of the record of appeal, he, instead of filing a statement of
their case rather raised certain objections to the state of the record in a
letter, exhibit D, dated 29th March, 2004, which, ex facie, was copied to the
Respondents or their Solicitors. In sum these complaints related to the absence
of exhibit A, a letter of abdication; otherwise they related to a slight mix up
in the paging and positioning of other exhibits. <o:p></o:p>This
letter was unheeded, for, on the 25th day of June 2007 the Registrar issued his
certificate of the applicants' non compliance with r 15(1) of C.I. 16, the
Rules of this Court; returnable on the 17th day of July 2007. The applicants
would seem to have been revived from their litigation comma by this notice, for
on the 13th day of July 2007 their counsel filed a search as to the fate of the
record of appeal. This search is revealing. The very first question thereof
runs thus: "(a) Whether or not pursuant to the letter dated 29/3/04 by
the Appellants' Solicitors requesting for the record of proceedings to be
corrected as such corrections have been effected (see copy of letter
attached)." This search was also ignored. <o:p></o:p>On
the 17th day of July 2007 this court ordered the applicants to file a motion
for rectification of the record (apparently holding that that was the
appropriate procedure for seeking rectification of a court record). The pursuant
motion was to be taken on the 26th day of July 2007. On the return day that
motion was dismissed and the court also struck out the applicants' appeal.
Hence the present application for Relistment and Extension of time to file
their statement of case. <o:p></o:p>Jurisdiction to Relist appeal struck
out unddr[sic] R.15 (2) of C.I 16.<o:p></o:p>The
Respondents contend that this court lacks jurisdiction to relist an appeal that
has been struck out for failure to file the appellant's statement of case as
laid down in r. 15(1) of the Rules of this court. In their affidavit in
opposition they contend thus: <o:p></o:p>"3.
That the supporting Affidavit of the
Applicants have failed to disclose under what principle of law or Rule of this
Supreme Court the Applicants are seeking to invoke to support the reliefs they
have applied for from this Court. <o:p></o:p>4.
That under the Supreme Court Rules 1996 (C.I. 16), as amended by C.I. 24 an
Application to Re-list as provided under Rule 26 of C.I. 16 relates only to
Rule 24 of C.I.16 for Non-Appearance of the Appellant or Rule 25 of C.I. 16 for
Non-Appearance of the Respondent. <o:p></o:p>5.
That both Appellants and Respondents appeared before Your Lordships on the 17th
and 26th July 2007 respectively and therefore Rule 24 and 25 aforementioned are
inapplicable and for that matter Rule 26 of C.I. 16 as amended by C.I. 24
cannot be invoked’. (e.s.) <o:p></o:p>This
contention ignores the history of R. 15(2) of C.I. 16. Nothing turns on the old
Supreme Court Rules, 1962 L.I. 218 since at that time the rule about filing an
appellant's statement of case had not been introduced. A similar rule was
introduced by way of a Practice Direction, in respect of applications for
Review to the Full Bench of the Court of Appeal. See PRACTICE DIRECTION REVIEW
BY THE FULL BENCH OF COURT OF APPEAL (1973)2 GLR 39. It is to be noted that
even though that Practice Direction did not provide for relistment of an
application that was struck out for failure to file a Statement of the
applicant's case the Full Bench of the Court of Appeal granted that relief, see
A/S Norway Cement Export Ltd. V. Addison (1974) 2 GLR 177 C.A. (Full Bench). <o:p></o:p>The
present rule on filing an appellant's statement of case was introduced by r. 13
of the Supreme Court Rules, 1970 C</main>