ANDREWS KOTEY & OTHERS (PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENTS) vs. GHANA TEXTILES PRINTING CO. LTD. (DEFENDANT/APPELLANT) [2012]DLCA7898

ANDREWS KOTEY & OTHERS (PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENTS) vs. GHANA TEXTILES PRINTING CO.... [2012]DLCA7898

Date	2012-12-20
Suit No.	SUIT NO. HI/13/2011
Citation No.	[2012]DLCA7898

APPAU J.A. (PRESIDING)

AYEBI J.A.

ADJEI J.A.

MR. J.A. AYITEY FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

MR. WISDOM ANTHONIO FOR PLAINTIFFF/RESPONDENTS

[2012]DLCA7898
																																						<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" >ANDREWS KOTEY &amp; OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA TEXTILES PRINTING CO. LTD.<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. HI/13/2011&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE:
20TH DECEMBER, 2012<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MR.
J.A. AYITEY FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MR.
WISDOM ANTHONIO FOR PLAINTIFFF/RESPONDENTS<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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

APPAU
J.A. (PRESIDING), AYEBI J.A., ADJEI 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:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm">

</div>OFOE,J.A.:<o:p></o:p>On a
careful reading of the record of appeal I found it impossible distancing myself
from the frustration and despair that the respondents, who I will refer to as
the plaintiffs, went through while their case, which started in 1993, went
through adjournments upon adjournments and through the hands of several judges.
I will refer to the appellant as the defendant. We are here talking about a
case that took 16 years to reach judgment. And the reason for this avoidable
delay, as disclosed in the record of appeal, is mainly a combination of
carelessness of lawyers and court officials. From the pleadings filed on behalf
of the parties and the several amendments that followed it is clear that even
though the lawyers who handled the suit appreciated the facts of the case they,
for unknown reason, found it difficult determining the appropriate relief to
seek from the court, thus necessitating amendments upon amendments. Come to
think of it that after the several amendments both counsel even forgot that the
issues that were set at the close of pleadings needed to be amended to fit the
eventual pleadings that formed the basis of the trial. It was rather the trial
judge who had to reformulate the whole issues in the course of his judgment.
This is what the trial judge said:<o:p></o:p>“I
must say that ever since both parties have amended their respective pleadings.
Plaintiffs have even amended the endorsement on their writ of summons on 9th
June 2008. Issues (a) and (b) above have therefore become irrelevant. Upon
studying the various amendments and having heard the parties, the issues which
to me call for consideration by the court are inter alia…………”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
trial judge abandoned all the earlier issues set because the amendments made by
both counsel in the course of trial had made them irrelevant. Surely if both counsels
had been a little more diligent they would have realized the need to amend the
earlier issues set in view of the subsequent amendments. <o:p></o:p>And
when His Lordship Gyamera Tawiah got the case started, the whole evidence on
record up to the 4th defence witness had to be aborted. Why because
not known to the parties and their lawyers the suit had earlier been struck out
on Registrars Summons as far back as the 2nd November 2000. Whether
they were notified of this Registrars Summons or not was not determined by the
court. It appeared not to have been raised for the consideration of the court. &nbsp;When the fact of the suit having been struck
out on this day 2nd November 2000 came to the knowledge of the trial
judge he ruled that all proceedings before him from the 6th of
November 2007 to the 15th of April 2008 were deemed not to exist in
the eyes of the law. While agreeing with the reasoning of the trial judge there
was no reason why he had to limit the invalidity of the said proceedings to
only records produced before him? The nullity he declared should affect all
proceedings including all orders made by the previous judges from the day 2nd
November 2000 when the suit was struck out. As a consequence the record of
proceedings from PAGES107/111 TO 353/442 will have to be ignored in this
judgment. I will explain this method of page numbering presently. Whole time
and money wasted because of the negligence of court officials who got a case
file struck out back into the trial stream. What I got to know from self
tuition of the registry administrative processes of the courts is that when a
suit is struck out the order is recorded in the case file and noted on the file
itself. &nbsp;This is brought to the attention
of the registrar of the court. Not only that but the file itself is then kept
in its appropriate shelve of cases struck out. The registrar, the docket clerk
and the court clerk – all these court staff – couldn’t have failed to notice a
case file that had been struck out reentering the trial unless they chose to be
negligent, or rather reckless.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;And paging the appeal records, a matter of
writing out 1,2,3,4…. was a problem for the registry of the trial court. The
pages are numbered differently at the bottom page and differently at the top
page. Which are the pages to use for references in the appeal records? The top
or the down numbering? Counsel who prepared the submission of their clients and
who should have been the first to draw the registrar’s attention to this
confusion went ahead and prepared their submission making use of the paging as
they stood. I thought they should have noticed tha</main>