THE REPUBLIC vs. THE COURT OF APPEAL EX PARTE; GHANA CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF BANKERS [2011]DLSC2646

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE COURT OF APPEAL EX PARTE; GHANA CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF BANK... [2011]DLSC2646

Date	2011-06-22
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J5/21/2001
Citation No.	[2011]DLSC2646

ATUGUBAJSC (PRESIDING)

DR. DATE-BAH JSC

ANSAH JSC

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

ARYEETEY

JSC

MISS AUDREY TWUM FOR THE APPLICANT

GODFRED YEBOAH-DAME FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT

[2011]DLSC2646
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>&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; vs.&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; <o:p></o:p>THE COURT OF
APPEAL<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE; GHANA CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF BANKERS<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 0in 0in">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J5/21/2001 &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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 22ND JUNE, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MISS AUDREY TWUM 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">

GODFRED
YEBOAH-DAME FOR THE 2ND RESPONDENT.<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, JSC (PRESIDING)
DR. DATE-BAH, JSC ANSAH, JSC BAFFOE-BONNIE, JSC AND ARYEETEY, JSC<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">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>DR.
DATE-BAH JSC:<o:p></o:p>The core of the complaint
in this application is that when the applicant’s appeal came up for hearing
before the Court of Appeal, the court, relying exclusively on the Registrar’s
Certificate that the applicant/appellant had not complied with the requirement
of Rule 20(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules (CI 19), struck out its appeal,
without giving any opportunity for representations to be made on its behalf by
its counsel who were present in court.&nbsp;
It claims, therefore, that the audi
alteram partem rule has been breached.&nbsp;
It has accordingly applied to this court for an order of certiorari to quash the order of the
Court of Appeal dated&nbsp; 1st
November, 2010 striking out the applicant’s appeal.<o:p></o:p>I would like to begin my
analysis of the law governing this main issue in this application by referring
to the words of one of the Ghanaian judges whom&nbsp;
I admire the most, namely Justice A.N.E. Amissah.&nbsp;&nbsp; Amissah JA, sitting in the High Court in
1968, expressed a&nbsp; clear view&nbsp; to the effect that non-compliance with the audi alteram partem rule results in
nullity of the subsequent proceedings.&nbsp;
He said in Vasquez v Quarshie
[1968] 2 GLR 62 at p. 63 that:<o:p></o:p>“But
no court is, to my mind, entitled to call upon a plaintiff to proceed with the
proof of his claim if it is aware that the defendant has not been notified of
the hearing. Similarly rule 17 speaks of the defendant having the action
against him dismissed and proving his counterclaim, if any, should the
plaintiff not appear.&nbsp; Here again a court which allows this to happen with
full knowledge that the plaintiff does not appear only because he is not aware
of the proceeding will be offending against the elementary principle of justice
which obliges it to hear both parties, or at least give them an opportunity to
have their say, before its decision.&nbsp; A court is only entitled to give a
judgment in default if the party fails to appear after notice of the
proceedings has been given to him. For then it would be justifiable to assume
that he does not wish to be heard.&nbsp; It is this party with notice who
defaults in appearance who is privileged to come before the court within
fourteen days to have the judgment set aside, if he has some substantial reason
for failing to appear when he should have.&nbsp; To hold that his brother
without notice is also obliged to come before the court within the same time
limit would lead to some inequitable results.&nbsp; It is not impossible that
he would get to know about the judgment against him long after the fourteen-day
period has elapsed.&nbsp; What should he do then?&nbsp; Should he come to the
court and ask for an extension of time within which to apply?&nbsp; I think
not.&nbsp; His entitlement to have the judgment set aside in such circumstances
is as of right and should not be made dependent on the discretion of the
court.&nbsp; A court making a decision in a case where a party does not appear
because he has not been notified is doing an act which is a nullity on the
ground of absence of jurisdiction.&nbsp; A person who is condemned in his
absence in proceedings of which he has no knowledge cannot be limited as to the
time within which he may repudiate the decision.&nbsp; Learned counsel
attempted to equate a notice served on the first defendant to produce documents
at the trial with notice of the trial.&nbsp; But a cursory examination of the
notice shows that this cannot be.&nbsp; It contains no notice of the hearing
date.&nbsp; A request that you should produce a document when the trial is on
is no notice of the time when the trial is to begin or to continue.”<o:p></o:p>Though Amissah JA made his
pronouncement in the High Court, this Supreme Court has held several times
recently that non-compliance with the audi
alteram partem rule results in nullity.&nbsp;
In The Republic v High Court,
Accra; ex parte Salloum &amp; Ors
(Coker, Interested Party), Suit No. J5/4/2</main>