NANA AKOSUA AGYEMANG vs. THE TRUSTEES SYNAGOGUE CHURCH OF ALL NATIONS [2010]DLSC4145

Date	2010-03-24
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J8/30/2010
Citation No.	[2010]DLSC4145

ATUGUBA J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

DATE-BAH (DR) J.S.C.

ANIN YEBOAH J.S.C.

BAFFOE-BONNIE J.S.C.

ARYEETEY J.S.C.

NENE AMEGATCHER FOR THE RESPONDENT.

K-SAN LAW FIRM FOR THE APPLICANT.

[2010]DLSC4145
																																						<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 AKOSUA AGYEMANG<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE TRUSTEES SYNAGOGUE
CHURCH OF ALL NATIONS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, 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 MOTION NO. J8/30/2010 &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:
24TH
MARCH, 2010<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>NENE
AMEGATCHER FOR THE RESPONDENT.<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">

K-SAN,
LAW FIRM FOR THE APPLICANT.<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">

ATUGUBA
J.S.C. (PRESIDING), DATE-BAH (DR) J.S.C., ANIN YEBOAH J.S.C., BAFFOE-BONNIE
J.S.C., AND ARYEETEY 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">

<p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-add-space:auto;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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>ATUGUBA, JSC:<o:p></o:p>The
Defendants/Appellants/Applicants brought before this court a repeat motion for
stay of execution pending appeal.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>In an affidavit in
opposition, deposed to on her behalf, the Plaintiff/Respondent stated in
paragraph 5 thereof thus: <o:p></o:p>“That at the hearing of
this application Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent will raise a preliminary objection that the instant application is
not properly before this Honourable Court”<o:p></o:p>The Respondent then
proceeded in subsequent paragraphs to state further and better particulars of her
objection.<o:p></o:p>When on 16/3/2010 the
motion was called counsel for the applicants, Eric Agbolosu, of K-San Chambers
objected that the respondent could not be heard as to her preliminary objection
since the same had not been served on him.&nbsp;
This court drew his attention to the proof of service before the court
which states that the affidavit in opposition wherein the preliminary objection
was raised has been served on K-San Chambers “through Joseph Osei (the clerk)”
on 4/3/2010.<o:p></o:p>Nonetheless counsel
insisted that since the document did not in fact reach him he cannot be said to
have been served.&nbsp; We impressed on
counsel that in practice service on his clerk is service on him but he stuck to
his guns.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Perceiving that there is no
readily available authority on the issue we decided to have a written Ruling on
it.<o:p></o:p>The Supreme Court Rules,
1996 C.1.16 do not state how service of a court process can be effected on
counsel.&nbsp; However r.5 of C.1.16 provides
thus: <o:p></o:p>“Where no provision is
expressly made by these Rules regarding the practice and procedure which shall
apply to any cause or matter before the Court, the Court shall prescribe such practice and procedure as in the opinion
of the Court the justice of the cause or matter may require.”<o:p></o:p>It has
sometimes been held in this court that where there is casus omissus in C.1.16
the only course possible is for this court to direct under r.5 what the
practice or procedure should be and until that is done, no step is
warranted.&nbsp; Nonetheless it is always
necessary to bear in mind that the legislature legislates with the existing law
in view and is not deemed to alter the same except to the extent provided
expressly or by very necessary implication.&nbsp;
In this regard the established practices of the courts cannot be
discounted in applying the law.&nbsp; Such
practices by their very nature may often be reflected by communis opnio or by contemporanea
expositio in the legal profession, both as to civil and criminal
matters alike.<o:p></o:p>Thus in
Rex v. Chancellor of St Edmundsbury and
Ipswich Diocese, ex parte White (1948) 1 K.B. 195 C.A at 216 Wrottesley L.J
forcefully stated thus. “In the interests
of all concerned, and particularly of litigants, a long settled practice of a court of record… is not to be disturbed except by establishing that a departure from it
is necessary in order to do justice to an applicant who can get justice in no
other way, and to whom the court has always had jurisdiction to grant the
relief prayed for.&nbsp; A heavy burden lies, therefore on those who
challenge a practice so long settled.” <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>