JUSTICE AMENYAGLO vs. GHANA BREWERIES LIMITED [2009]DLCA4855

Date	2009-02-25
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO: H1/171/2008
Citation No.	[2009]DLCA4855

GBADEGBE J.A. (PRESIDING)

APALOO J.A.

DUOSE J.A.

[2009]DLCA4855
																																						<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" >JUSTICE AMENYAGLO
<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA
BREWERIES LIMITED <o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</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">

CIVIL
APPEAL NO: H1/171/2008&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: 25TH FEBRUARY,
2009<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <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">

GBADEGBE
J.A. (PRESIDING), APALOO J.A., DUOSE J.A.<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">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>Gbadegbe J. A.&nbsp; read the judgement of the court as follows:<o:p></o:p>The question that we have to
determine in this appeal is a short one that turns on the question whether the
court below was right in declining jurisdiction in the matter?&nbsp; We commence with the observation that
although the court below did not consider the issue of jurisdiction earlier on
in the proceedings –the question whether or not it had jurisdiction which is
referred to as the jurisdictional question nothing of consequence flows from
this as there is no conflict of judicial opinion that the question of
jurisdiction can be raised at any time including the last appellate court See-
Kwaframoah III v Sarakyie II [1996-97] G.L.R 199. Reading the judgment of the
Supreme Court, Abban CJ (as he then was) observed at page 208 as follows:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;“If a tribunal adjudicates on a dispute over
which it has no jurisdiction, its decision thereon is a nullity and the party
affected by it is entitled ex debito
justitiae to have it set aside. The appellants herein were entitled to
raise the question at any stage of the litigation, even at the Supreme Court
level.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>So fundamental is the point of
jurisdiction that when raised even before a superior court, the court must pause
with its deliberation to consider it before proceeding further with the case
before it. This way, the principle of rule according to law is upheld; for to
do otherwise would amount to courts determining cases in situations where the
law provides regarding the subject matter &nbsp;that jurisdiction shall not vest in them. In
the instant case, we think that&nbsp; once the
point of jurisdiction was raised the learned trial judge should have determined
it before making the findings of fact that appear at page 48-49 of the record
of proceedings. As it is not having had the jurisdiction to embark on the
determination he could not have made the findings that may be found at pages 48
-49 of the record of proceedings.The learned trial judge in our view
notwithstanding the fact that the issue of jurisdiction was first raised in the
course of closing speech of learned counsel for the respondent herein ought to
have determined the question of jurisdiction namely whether he had jurisdiction
to decide the &nbsp;substantive case that was
before him first before considering any other matter&nbsp; in the action including the effect of the
admitted evidence.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>We have patiently read the record
and attended to the statements of case by learned counsel and have come to the
view having regard to the subject matter of the action that the learned trial
judge was right in dismissing the action on the ground of absence of
jurisdiction. In our opinion the point raised by learned counsel for the
respondent herein at the close of the evidence regarding the jurisdiction of
the court is plainly unanswerable. An examination of record in terms of the
subject matter of the claim discloses that&nbsp;
it is an action by a workman under&nbsp;
the provisions of&nbsp; the Workmen’s
Compensation&nbsp; Act, 1987 ( PNDCL 187). A
careful reading of the law particularly sections 19, 20, 21 and 38 discloses
that the competent forum for the initiation of disputes is either the District Court
or the Circuit Court. We note that although the enabling law makes provision
for the Chief Justice in certain cases to direct that a court other than the
District court may hear such an action in the case before us there is no
suggestion that this was the case and accordingly the ordinary situation
envisaged by the law applied with the result that in commencing the action in
the High Court the entire proceedings suffered from a want of jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The result in our opinion is that
the appeal herein fails and the decision of the court below is affirmed.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>