INTELSAT GLOBAL SALES AND MARKETING LIMITED vs. NETWORK COMPUTER SYSTEM LTD [2011]DLSC4119

Date	2011-12-20
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J8/1/2011
Citation No.	[2011]DLSC4119

ATUGUBA JSC (PRESIDING)

AKUFFO (MS.) JSC

ADINYIRA (MRS.) JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) JSC

KEN BROOKMAN AMISSAH FOR THE APPLICANT.

ACE ANKOMAH (WITH HIM GLORIA COFIE) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2011]DLSC4119
																																						<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" >INTELSAT GLOBAL SALES AND MARKETING LIMITED<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NETWORK COMPUTER SYSTEM LTD<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. J8/1/2011&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 20TH DECEMBER, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>KEN BROOKMAN AMISSAH 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">

ACE ANKOMAH (WITH HIM
GLORIA COFIE) FOR THE 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), AKUFFO (MS.) JSC, ADINYIRA (MRS.) JSC, GBADEGBE JSC, AND
AKOTO-BAMFO (MRS) 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">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>ATUGUBA, J.S.C:<o:p></o:p>I have had the advantage
of reading the opinion of my worthy brother Gbadegbe J.S.C. It is to the effect
that the Ruling of the High Court dated 12/3/2010 refusing to set aside the
registration of the foreign judgment herein is interlocutory and therefore the
appeal therefrom dated 21/4/2010 being filed outside 21 days is a nullity,
wherefore all pursuant processes founded on the same are also nullities and
consequently this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the applicant’s repeat
application for stay of execution.<o:p></o:p>The question whether a
judgment or order is final or interlocutory has defied the courts here and in
England to such an extent that the Legislatures in both countries have simply
enacted that such a question should be finally determined by the appellate
court when it arises in a case under appeal. This problem has persisted even
though in England and Ghana the judicial test for finality has been harmonised
in favour of Lord Alverstone C. J.’s test in Bozson v. Altrincham UDC (1903) 1 K.B. 547 at 548 namely whether
the effect of the order made is to finally dispose of the parties’ rights. Thus
in Haron bin Mohd Zaid v. Central
Securities (Holdings) Bhd (1982) 2 All ER 481, P.C. at&nbsp; 486, the Privy Council per Sir William
Douglas delivering the judgment of the court in an appeal from the judgment of
the Federal Court of Malaysia, said:<o:p></o:p>“It
appears to their Lordships that the
Federal Court … has established over
the years a settled practice of applying Lord Alverstone CJ’s test in the
Bozson case in order to determine whether an order is final or interlocutory.
Their Lordships are unable to find any error in this reasoning; on the contrary
their Lordships feel entitled to say that
the test is both sound and convenient.” (e.s)<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>Though it is sometimes
easier to apply this test to judgments delivered on the merits of a case it is
not so easy when it is to be applied to an order. Thus in Atta Kwadwo v. Badu (1977) 1 GLR 1 C. A. at pages 4 to 5 Apaloo
J.A. (as he then was) delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal quoted a
passage from Halsbury’s Laws of England (3rd Edition) Vol. 22 at 742
thus:<o:p></o:p>“a judgment or order may be final for one
purpose and interlocutory for another, or final as to part and interlocutory as
to part. The meaning of the two words
must therefore be considered separately in relation to the particular purpose
for which it is required.” (e.s.)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;In that case it was held that an order
striking out an action following discontinuance, with costs, though “with liberty for fresh action” is a
final one. However, one tends to agree with Adade JSC in Pomaa v. Fosuhene (1987-88) 1 GLR 244 S.C. that such an order, in
view of the reservation of liberty as to fresh action is not final since that
very order implies that nothing has been decided between the parties. The Pomaa case held that a judgement of
declaration obtained upon admissions is final. One also tends to agree with the
decision of the Court of Appeal in Tawiah
v. Brako (1973) 1 GLR 483 C.A. that a ruling on an application to set aside
a writ of fi.fa.is final. Clearly, in
the latter case the rights of the parties involved in such an application
depend on whether the writ of fi.fa.
should be set aside or not.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>