SUMANI MUNJI vs. ALHAJI ADAMU IDDRISU, ALHAJI MAHAMA SULEMANA AND ALHAJI SIDIQUE LAMINI [2013]DLSC2812

SUMANI MUNJI vs. ALHAJI ADAMU IDDRISU, ALHAJI MAHAMA SULEMANA AND ALHAJI SIDIQUE... [2013]DLSC2812

Date	2013-05-24
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/20/2012
Citation No.	[2013]DLSC2812

WOOD (MRS.) CJ (PRESIDING)

DOTSE JSC

YEBOAH JSC

BENIN JSC

AKAMBA JSC

JUSTICE AYESI ESQ FOR THE PLAINTIFF /APPELLANT/APPELLANT.

THADDEUS SORRY ESQ FOR THE DEFENDANT/ RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT

[2013]DLSC2812
																																						<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" >SUMANI MUNJI<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ALHAJI ADAMU IDDRISU,
ALHAJI MAHAMA SULEMANA AND ALHAJI SIDIQUE LAMINI<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. J4/20/2012&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE:
24TH
MAY, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>JUSTICE AYESI ESQ, FOR THE
PLAINTIFF /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">

WOOD (MRS.) CJ (PRESIDING), DOTSE JSC,
YEBOAH JSC, BENIN JSC, AKAMBA JSC<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:150%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>WOOD
(MRS.), CJ;<o:p></o:p>This
appeal raises such a narrow and uncomplicated question of law; it is difficult
to fathom why this court has been invited to intervene. The simple question we
have to determine is whether the trial High court which extended the time
within which the appellant could file an appeal, some three years after the decision
appealed from, had power under its review jurisdiction as provided under Order
42 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 C.I.47 to vacate the said
order for want of jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p>The
facts which led to the application for extension of time within which to appeal
are these. &nbsp;On the 20th of
January, 2003, the appellant lodged an appeal against a decision of the High
Court delivered on 13\1\2003. On 26/7/2006, (as we can see over three years
after the filing of the appeal) it was thrown out on the preliminary legal
ground that it was, on the prevailing facts, a nullity. Subsequently, the
appellant, who was anxious to have the appeal determined on the merits, successfully
applied to the High Court for an order extending the time within which to file
his intended appeal. &nbsp;Aggrieved by the
grant, the respondent in turn succeeded in deploying the court’s review
jurisdiction to have the order vacated. His argument before the court was that
it had acted ultra vires its powers, given that the motion for extension of
time was brought well beyond the statutory six month period permitted under the
Rule 9 (7) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 C.I.19. <o:p></o:p>The
appeal before us arises from the appellant’s unsuccessful attempt to have the
order reversed by the Court of Appeal. We have very little difficulty in
affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal. <o:p></o:p>In
this court, the appellant restricted the appeal and arguments in support
thereof to only one ground, namely:<o:p></o:p>“That
the Court of Appeal erred by holding that the trial judge erred by holding that
the trial Judge had no jurisdiction to grant extension of time to Appellant
within which to appeal.”<o:p></o:p>Counsel’s
contention is that once the High Court found on the proven facts that they had
an appeal pending before the Court of Appeal for three long years before the
court struck it out, any delay in applying for extension of time, cannot be
attributable to them but the court. My understanding of the argument is that
once they have explained the cause of the delay, they were automatically
entitled to succeed on their application and the court subsequently erred in
vacating the order so obtained. <o:p></o:p>The
review jurisdiction of the High Court as provided under order 42 of CI 47 is
one of the legally permissible modes for correcting patent mistakes or errors
of law on the face of the record or for some other sufficient reason, which in
my view is akin to patent legal errors, such as void orders or orders which are
plain nullities.&nbsp; The rule provides:<o:p></o:p>Strict
time lines within which appeals may be lodged have also clearly been set out
under the Court of Appeal Rules 1997 (C.I. 19). They provide:<o:p></o:p>“
9&nbsp; Time limits for appealing<o:p></o:p>(1) Subject to any other enactment
governing appeals, an appeal shall not be brought after the expiration of <o:p></o:p>