EOCO vs. EDWIN KOFI SARFO/VOLTA RESOURCES [2013]DLHC12081

Date	2013-06-17
Suit No.	SUIT NO. FTRM 157/13
Citation No.	[2013]DLHC12081

HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM

VIDA AGYEKUM ACHEAMPONG FOR APPLICANT

JACQUELINE AVOTRI FOR RESPONDENT

[2013]DLHC12081
																																						<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" >EOCO<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>EDWIN KOFI SARFO/VOLTA RESOURCES<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<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;">

SUIT NO. FTRM 157/13&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
17TH&nbsp;JUNE 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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;">

</div>CORAM<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP JUSTICE JOHN AJET-NASAM<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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;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">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>The
applicant herein, dissatisfied with the ruling of this court on the 26th
of April 2013 has filed this present motion for review under Order 42 r 1 (1)
of CI 47 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The inherent
jurisdiction of the Court was mentioned in the well celebrated case of Mosi
vrs. Bagyina [1963]1GLR 337, holding 4. &nbsp;“… The Power of the court or a judge to set
aside any such judgment or order is derived from the inherent jurisdiction of
the court to set aside its own void orders…” <o:p></o:p>Now,
under Order 42 r 1, it provides “(1) A person who is aggrieved <o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;
font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">a.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; By a
judgment or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has
been preferred; or<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;
font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">b.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; By a
judgment or Order from which no appeal is allowed, may upon the discovery of
new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence, was not within that person’s knowledge or could not be produced by
that person at the time when the judgment was given or the order made, or
on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for
any other sufficient reason, apply for a review of the judgment order.”
(Emphasis Mine)<o:p></o:p>Order
42 r (2) further provides:<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;
font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">(1)&nbsp;&nbsp; The
applicant shall give seven days notice of the application to all parties to the
action.<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;
font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">(2)&nbsp;&nbsp; Subject
to sub rule (3) , the application shall be made within fourteen days from
the date on which the judgment or order in respect of which review in sought is
entered or made” (Emphasis Mine)<o:p></o:p>In Republic
vrs. Mensa-Bonsu [1995-96] 1 GLR 377 at 407, Adade JSC
confessed: “Of course judges, like any other group of human beings do make
mistakes ….” See also S. Kwami Tetteh” Civil Procedure, A Practical Approach”
page 878.<o:p></o:p>