[2008]DLSC6421 Login to Read Full Case <span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; color:#00B0F0">MRS. ELIZABETH ANOKYE<i> <o:p></o:p></i></span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><i><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;">(</span></i></b><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ APPELLATS<b>)<o:p></o:p></b></span></i></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; color:#00B0F0">vs.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%; tab-stops:center 3.25in left 402.0pt"><b><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";color:#00B0F0">MRS MARGARET OSEI AND 8 0THERS<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;text-align:center; line-height:115%;tab-stops:center 3.25in left 402.0pt"><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">(RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></b></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"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">CIVIL MOTION NO J8/2/2007 </span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""> DATE<b>: </b>5TH MARCH 2008<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: 115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">COUNSEL:</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;border:none; mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">EDWARD ANOKYE FOR THE APPLICANT. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%;border:none; mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">PAAPA DADSON FOR THE RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">CORAM: <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">MRS. WOOD, C.J. (PRESIDING) BROBBEY, J.S.C. ANSAH, J.S.C. MRS. ADINYIRA, J.S.C. AND ASIAMAH, J.S.C.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="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"><b><span style="font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">RULING<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:115%"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">MRS. WOOD, C.J. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">In this motion, the Appellant Applicants pray for special leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal dated the 15th of April 2005 and a stay of execution of the said decision. They contend that owing to a procedural blunder, albeit on the part of their counsel — failing to obtain leave before filing their initial appeal, — and other matters relative to it, they have been disabled from filing a competent appeal within the time stipulated under the Supreme Court rules CI 16. The application is brought under Article 131 (1) (b), Article 131 (2) of the Constitution and section 4 (2) of the Courts Act, Act 459 rules 7(2) and (4) of the Supreme Court Rules, CI 16. I do not think the issues raised by this application require a setting out in extenso of the various constitutional and other statutory provisions on which the application is based. The respondents do not in any event challenge their applicability. Their contention simply is that they are not entitled to this special right to appeal. In the circumstances, what we have to examine firstly is the matters that influence a grant or refusal of the order. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">The legal position is that in the area of judicial discretion, where cases are dealt with purely on the merits and on a case by case basis, there can be no judicial precedent properly so called. Nonetheless, there are standard principles which guide our discretionary decision. It is these criteria which I now examine. In Dolphyne (No) 2 v Speedline [1996-97] SCGLR 373, this honourable court had opportunity to determine the general principles which should guide the court and concluded that: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">"The principles to be applied as guides on which the Supreme Court might determine whether to grant special leave to appeal or not were: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">Where there was a prima facie error on the face of the record; or a general principle of law had arisen for the first time; or a decision by the Supreme Court on the point sought to be appealed against would be advantageous to the public." <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">I understand this last principle under (c) to be referable to not just any legal question but those novel points of law that raise substantial issues of some public importance. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">Kotey v Koletey [2000] SCGLR 417 and Ansah v Atsem [2001-2002] SCGLR expanded the law further and observed that in such exercises, other factors such as public policy, the need for litigation to come to an end, the need to avoid inordinate disrespect for the rules of court and the need to avoid prejudice or hardship or inconvenience to the party in whose favour the judgment which is to be appealed against was rendered, must be given due consideration. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">We apply these principles to the peculiar facts of this case and we find ourselves unable to exercise our discretion in the applicant's favour. This simple landlord and tenant case, which from the onset was in any event completely devoid of any novel, let alone substantial legal question of some public importance has been in our courts for some thirteen years. Again, there is no evidence to suggest that in the course of the appellate hearing, a substantial legal issue of serious public interest arose for the court or this court's determination. The proposed grounds of appeal, which are a repeat of those submitted at the Court of Appeal, and which I have taken the liberty to reproduce, do not also make any such disclosures. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">They read: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">"The judgment of the Court of Appeal was against the weight of evidence. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">The learned Court of Appeal erred by holding that the High Court Judge was right in disturbing the finding of fact of the trial District Court. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">The Court of Appeal erred by holding that the suit was an abuse of the judicial process. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"">The Court of Appeal erred in holding that the reasons for coming for ejectment was genuine as there was sufficient evidence to the contrary. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><