ANTHONY KWABENA ANYAN vs. THE HIGH COURT, ACCRA [2008]DLSC2450

Date	2008-12-10
Suit No.	SUIT NO. CM J5/37/2008
Citation No.	[2008]DLSC2450

AKUFFO (MS) J.S.C (PRESIDING)

DATE-BAH J.S.C

ADINYIRA (MRS) J.S.C

OWUSU (MS) J.S.C

DOTSE J.S.C

KWAKU BAAH FOR THE APPLICANT

BENARD AHIAVOR FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY

[2008]DLSC2450
																																						<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" >ANTHONY KWABENA ANYAN<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE HIGH COURT, ACCRA<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>SUIT
NO. CM J5/37/2008<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: 10TH DECEMBER, 2008.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>KWAKU
BAAH 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">

BENARD
AHIAVOR FOR THE INTERESTED PARTY<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&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">

AKUFFO
(MS) J.S.C (PRESIDING), DATE-BAH &nbsp;J.S.C,
ADINYIRA (MRS) J.S.C, OWUSU (MS) J.S.C, DOTSE &nbsp;J.S.C<o:p></o:p>

</div>RULING<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;OWUSU, (MS) J.S.C:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;This is an application to invoke the
supervisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 132 of the
constitution, which reads as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“The supreme court shall have supervisory
Jurisdiction over all courts and over any adjudicating authority and may in the
exercise of that supervisory Jurisdiction, issue orders and directions for the
purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement of its supervisory power.”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Applicant is seeking an order of
certiorari directed to the High Court presided over by J. B. Benson J. to move
into this court for the purpose of quashing that part of the ruling of the
court dated 10th day of June, 2008, that “the claimant has no interest in the
subject matter of this application.”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Before we proceed to deal with the
application, we deem it necessary to touch on the title of the application as
stated:<o:p></o:p>No
issue has been raised in this application on the title as stated but all the
same we feel the need to have it corrected.&nbsp;
The title, as it is, is not fatal to the application, particularly as
the court’s aim is to do substantial justice between the parties and either
party would suffer no hardship if the heading of the application is amended.
Accordingly, we are inclined to amend the title in the exercise of the court’s
general Jurisdiction under Art 129 (4) of the constitution to conform to the
usual titles adopted in applications of this nature. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Article 129 (4) of the 1992 constitution reads
as follows: <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“for the purposes of hearing and determining a
matter within its jurisdiction and the amendment, execution or the enforcement
of a judgment or order made on any matter, and for the purpose of any other
authority, expressly or by necessary implication given to the Supreme Court by
this Constitution or any other law, the Supreme Court shall have all the
powers, authority and Jurisdiction vested in any court established by this
constitution or any other law.” <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;“The
wrong heading of the application for an order of certiorari could not in any
material manner, derogate from the nature of the application itself. Since the
supreme court was a court of final resort, in the absence of specific
prescriptions in the supreme court rules, 1970 (C113) or any other relevant
statute, what was more important was whether the application had any substance
regardless of the form in which it has been intituled”. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;See the case of OKOFOH ESTATES LTD VRS MODERN
SIGNS LTD (1996 -97) SCGLR P. 224 at 225.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;We therefore alter the title to read:&nbsp; THE REPUBLIC VRS HIGH COURT; ACCRA EX –PARTE:
ANTHONY KWABENA ANYAN.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;With the title thus amended, we see our way
clear in dealing with the application on its merits.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The events leading to the filing of the
instant application before the court are briefly as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Applicant and the Interested Party are
sub-lessees of Edward Nassar and Co. Ltd, a lessee of the Government of Ghana
of a piece of land in the light Industrial Area, South of Ring Road West.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Edward Nasser and Co. Ltd, having taken a
lease of the property, sublet portions of it to the Applicant and Interested
party.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;On or about 24th day of March 2004, the
Interested Party brought an action against the Applicant for a declaration of
title to plot No. 1A and marked “44” on a map attached to the Applicant’s
statement of case in this application and obtained Judgment against him. It was
not until 11th November, 2005 that he applied by motion ex-parte, for a writ of
possession which was granted on 26th November, 2007.<o:p></o:p>In
executing the Judgment, it is alleged the Interested Party entered another
property of the Applicant other than that in respect of which judgment was
obtained and attached same.&nbsp; It was
against this execution that the interpleader proceeding was instituted in which
the Applicant herein claimed interest in the attached property.<o:p></o:p>It
is the contention of the claimant that the execution Judgment Creditor had
levied execution on a property other than plot No. 1A in respect of which
Judgment was obtained.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the execution Judgment creditor, in response to the claimant’s submission,
had argued that the execution debtor/claimant has no interest in the property
in respect of which execution was levied because his grantor i.e. Edward Nasser
and Company’s interest had expired in October, 2007.<o:p></o:p>