ASHANTI GOLDFIELDS COMPANY LTD vs. AFRICORE GHANA LTD AND WESTCHESTER RESOURCES LTD [2013]DLSC2766

ASHANTI GOLDFIELDS COMPANY LTD vs. AFRICORE GHANA LTD AND WESTCHESTER RESOURCES... [2013]DLSC2766

Date	2013-03-27
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J8/29/2013
Citation No.	[2013]DLSC2766

DR. DATE BAH J.S.C.

OSAFO-BOABENG FOR THE APPLICANT.

OPOKU-AGYEI FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2013]DLSC2766
																																						<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" >ASHANTI GOLDFIELDS
COMPANY LTD<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>AFRICORE GHANA LTD AND
WESTCHESTER RESOURCES 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
APPEAL NO. J8/29/2013&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 27TH MARCH, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>OSAFO-BOABENG 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">

OPOKU-AGYEI
FOR THE RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>DR.
DATE BAH J.S.C., SITTING AS A SINGLE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT<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>DR.
DATE-BAH JSC:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>The
defendant/appellant/applicant has brought a motion on notice for directions
from this Court seeking the following orders:&nbsp;
“(i) that the sum of US $ 4,000,000 paid into court for investment
pursuant to the order of the Court of Appeal dated 24 October 2011 remain in
investment pending the final determination of the appeal herein;&nbsp; (ii)&nbsp;
that each Plaintiff continue to hold the sum of US$1,000,000 paid by the
Defendant pursuant to the said order dated 24 October 2011;&nbsp; (iii) that pending the final determination of
the appeal, the balance of the judgment debt be not enforced by the Plaintiffs
and other orders as to this Honourable Court it may seem fit.”<o:p></o:p>The
jurisdictional basis for this application is not expressly stated, except that
the applicant claims to be invoking “the ample powers” of this Court.&nbsp; This is where the problem is.&nbsp; This Court does not have indeterminate and
limitless power to straddle the judicial system dispensing orders right, left
and centre from its ample powers.&nbsp; Its
powers are derived from the Constitution, statute and practice (including
settled rules as to inherent power).&nbsp;
Counsel, therefore, owes an obligation to identify which of this Court’s
powers he is relying on.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
for the applicant has admitted that this motion is not a repeat application
made under rule 20 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (CI 16).&nbsp; That admission implies that he is skating on
thin ice.&nbsp; The respondent has challenged
the jurisdiction of this court on the ground that, since the record of appeal
in this case has not yet been prepared and transmitted to the Supreme Court, it
is not seised with jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s motion for directions.<o:p></o:p>This
jurisdictional issue deserves to be addressed before any other issues in this
case.&nbsp; Rule 16 of CI 16 provides as
follows:<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:
&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri;mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-latin">“16<span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-latin">. (1) After the transmission of the record of
appeal from the court below to the Court, the Court shall be seized of the
appeal and any application relating to the appeal shall subsequently be made to
the Court.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:
150%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri;mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-latin">(2) Any
application filed in the court below after the transmission of the record of
appeal shall be transmitted to the Court.”<o:p></o:p>On
the face of this provision, before the transmission of the record of appeal to
the Supreme Court, it does not have jurisdiction to deal with interlocutory
matters relating to a particular appeal, unless an application can be grounded
on any of its other bases of jurisdiction, such as its supervisory
jurisdiction.&nbsp; The problem with the present
application before this Court is that it signally fails to identify any such
alternative jurisdictional basis.<o:p></o:p>The
applicant’s argument in support of this Court’s jurisdiction in this matter is
as follows (in paras 5 and 6 of its “Arguments in support of the application”):<o:p></o:p>“5.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This court is posited in the pinnacle of
justice.&nbsp; It has the jurisdiction to
entertain an appeal from the Court of Appeal.&nbsp;
Article 131(1)(a) of the Constitution 1992 grants the applicant the right
to appeal to this court “as of right”.&nbsp; A
purposive interpretation of the constitutional provision would concede to this
court all requisite powers that would ensure the right of appeal, if exercised,
is not rendered nugatory.<o:p></o:p>6.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Mindful of the ample powers vested in
this court, this court held in Merchant
Bank Ghana Ltd. v Similar Ways Ltd&nbsp;
Civil Motion J8/38/2011 dated 29/3/2011 that in deserving cases, it
would entertain an application for which no express provision is made under the
Rules.&nbsp; Said His Lordship Atuguba JSC in
that case:<o:p></o:p>“Remedies not expressly
provided for<o:p></o:p>Nonetheless
the Rules of Court cannot cover every conceivable situation that may arise
pending the determination of an appeal.&nbsp;
Clearly, for example, the judgment creditor who has had a stay of
execution granted against him may, like his counterpart in the In re Yendi case, be faced with certain
serious detriments from the judgment-debtor’s activities.&nbsp; </main>