ANTHONY AMEGASHIE& ANOR vs MILLICOM GH. LTD [2013]DLCA16151

Date	2013-03-22
Suit No.	SUIT NO.H3/229/2013
Citation No.	[2013]DLCA16151

KANYOKE J.A. (PRESIDING)

ACQUAYE J.A

ADJEI J.A

MR. YONNI KULENDI

MR. J. K. AGYEMANG

[2013]DLCA16151
																																						<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" >ANTHONY
AMEGASHIE&amp; ANOR<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MILLICOM
GH. LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 4.5pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO.H3/229/2013&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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 MARCH 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM&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>KANYOKE J.A. (PRESIDING), ACQUAYE J.A, ADJEI J.A<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 4.5pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;tab-stops:
center 242.9pt left 303.0pt;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; RULING&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>

</div>DENNIS
ADJEI, J.A:<o:p></o:p>The defendant/appellant/respondent filed
an appeal against the judgment of the High Court delivered on 26th
January,2011.&nbsp; I will for the purposes of
this application refer to the plaintiffs/respondents/ applicants as Applicants
and the defendant/appellant/respondent as Respondent.<o:p></o:p>The respondent set out seven (7) grounds
of appeal on his notice of appeal filed on 14th February, 2011.&nbsp; The respondent indicated its intention to
file additional grounds of appeal on receipt of the record of appeal.&nbsp; After Form 6 had been issued, the respondent
filed its written submission and argued the additional two grounds of appeal together
with the original grounds of appeal without the leave of the court.<o:p></o:p>The respondent filed a notice of
application to incorporate the additional grounds of appeal and argued same in its
written submission.&nbsp; The written
submission was filed on 14th January, 2013 at 2.58pm whiles the
notice of the application which contained the additional ground of appeal was
filed on 14th January, 2012 at 2.52pm.&nbsp; The notice of application was filed 6 minutes
before the written submission.<o:p></o:p>When the applicants were served with the
appellant’s written submission and the notice of application to argue additional
grounds of appeal, they considered the processes as infraction to the Court of
Appeal Rules C.I. 19 and decided to challenge its competence.&nbsp; The applicants’ application is to strike out
the defendant/appellant/respondent’s notice of application to argue additional
grounds of appeal and written submission filed upon the notice of application
to argue additional grounds of appeal. <o:p></o:p>The application is to strike out the
written submission which incorporated the additional grounds of appeal which
was filed without leave of the court as well as the notice of application to
argue additional grounds of appeal which was filed without a supporting
affidavit.<o:p></o:p>According to the lawyer for the
applicant, the respondent should have applied to the court for leave to amend
the notice of appeal to include the additional grounds of appeal and failing to
apply for the amendment rendered the entire process a nullity.&nbsp; Rule 8 of C. I. 19 which the respondent is
said to have infringed states thus:<o:p></o:p>“The
appellant shall not without the leave of the court, argue to be heard in
support of a ground of objection</main>