MATTHEW TAWIAH ARYEETEY vs. SOCIAL SECURITY AND NATIONAL INSURANCE TRUST (SSNIT) [2013]DLSC2708

Date	2013-02-27
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/29/2012
Citation No.	[2013]DLSC2708

ATUGUBA J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

ANSAH J.S.C.

ADINYIRA (MRS.) J.S.C.

OWUSU (MS.) J.S.C.

DOTSE J.S.C.

JOSEPH SIILO FOR THE DEFENDANT/ APPELLANT/ APPELLANT.

EBO QUARSHIE (WITH HIM MRS. ERSKINE) FOR THE PLAINTIFF /RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT.

[2013]DLSC2708
																																						<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" >MATTHEW TAWIAH ARYEETEY<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>SOCIAL SECURITY AND
NATIONAL INSURANCE TRUST (SSNIT)<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
APPEAL NO. J4/29/2012 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 27TH FEBRUARY, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>JOSEPH SIILO FOR THE
DEFENDANT/ APPELLANT/ APPELLANT. <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">

EBO
QUARSHIE (WITH HIM MRS. ERSKINE) FOR THE PLAINTIFF /RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>ATUGUBA
J.S.C. (PRESIDING), ANSAH J.S.C., ADINYIRA (MRS.) J.S.C., OWUSU (MS.) J.S.C.,
DOTSE J.S.C.<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:150%;
border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:
solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>DOTSE
JSC: <o:p></o:p>The issue which calls for determination in this
appeal as a preliminary point is whether the appeal lodged by the SSNIT, the Defendant/Appellant/Applicant/Appellant
hereafter referred to as the Defendant against the decision of the Court of
Appeal dated 3rd May, 2011 as it were in favour of the
Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent/Respondent hereafter referred to as the
Plaintiff is interlocutory or final.<o:p></o:p>In this respect, I cannot but refer to the
majority decision of this Court in the case of Opoku and others v Axes Co. Ltd [2011] I SCGLR 50, holding 2 where
the majority Date-Bah, Baffoe-Bonnie and Aryeetey JJSC stated as follows:-<o:p></o:p>“The
common law, over the years, had recognized two alternative tests or divergent
views in determining whether an order was final or interlocutory. The first
test, called the “nature of the order
approach”) Lord Alverstone CJ test), was whether or not the order as made
had disposed of the rights of the parties; if it did, it was final; if it did
not, it was interlocutory. The second test, the “nature of the application” approach (Lord Esher MR test) was to
place emphasis on the nature of the application made to the court, i.e. an order would remain interlocutory so long
as a different order made in the same proceedings could have kept the
litigation in being. It did not matter whether the order made would dispose
of the litigation. The courts in Ghana had been consistent in rejecting the
nature of the application approach in favour of the nature of the order
approach. Dictum of Lord Denning J LJ in Salter
Rex &amp; Co v Ghosh [1971] 2 ALL ER 865 at 866; and Minister of Agriculture, Food and Forestry v Alte Leipzeger [2000] 1
ESC 13; [2000] 4 IR 32 per Hardiman J considered. Attorney-General v Faroe Atlantic Co. Ltd [2005-2006] SCGLR 271 at
288-289; Republic v High Court (Fast Track Division) Accra, Ex parte State
Housing Co. Ltd. (No 2) (Koranten-Amoako Interested Party) [2009] SCGLR 185 at
194; and Halle &amp; Sonns SA v Bank
of Ghana and Warm Weather Enterprise Ltd., Civil Motion No J7/11/2010, 15
December 2010, unreported followed.”<o:p></o:p>Fortunately, when this case came up for review,
the unanimous decision of the court speaking through its President, my
respected brother Atuguba JSC whilst dismissing the application for review on
15th November, 2011 stated quite clearly that it was following the “nature of the order” approach in
determining whether the order was final or interlocutory. This is how the court
per Atuguba JSC put the issue to its final resting place:-<o:p></o:p>“The best
known test for a final judgment is that it disposes
of the rights of the parties in relation to the res litiga. In the course of
the trial the res litiga may assume a new dimension wholly or partly depending
on the permissible ramifications of litigation. We are wholly unmoved by a
contention that, when a part of a claim has been distinctly ascertained and
judgment given as to the rights of the parties in relation to it, without the
need for further litigation on adjudicatory process regarding the same, such a
pronouncement&nbsp; of the court is anything
but final.”<o:p></o:p>In order to detemine whether this court should
adopt “the nature of the order”
approach or the “nature of the application”
approach in this particular instance, it is useful to examine into detail
not only the decision of the Court of Appeal of 3rd May 2011, but
the circumstances of the facts, giving rise to such a decision.<o:p></o:p>In order for a fuller and proper understanding of
the approach that will be followed, it is deemed expedient to set out in clear
detail the facts of this appeal.<o:p></o:p>The Plaintiff/Respondent filed a writ of summons
on 11th July 2007 against the defendant claiming the following:<o:p></o:p>a.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
An order
directed at the defendants to pay to the plaintiff his duly and legally
entitled pension and social security benefits forthwith.<o:p></o:p>