THE REPUBLIC vs. THE HIGH COURT (COM. DIV.) KUMASI EX PARTE: FIRST ATLANTIC BANK LIMITED [2014]DLSC2853

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE HIGH COURT (COM. DIV.) KUMASI EX PARTE: FIRST ATLANTIC BANK... [2014]DLSC2853

Date	2014-12-19
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.J8/2/2015
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC2853

BENIN J.S.C

DANIYAL ABDUL KARIM ESQ. FOR THE APPLICANT.

KWASI AFRIFA ESQ. FOR THE INTERESTED PARTIES.

[2014]DLSC2853
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE HIGH
COURT (COM. DIV.) KUMASI<o:p></o:p>EX PARTE:
FIRST ATLANTIC BANK LIMITED<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.J8/2/2015&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 19TH DECEMBER, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>DANIYAL
ABDUL KARIM ESQ. 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">

KWASI
AFRIFA ESQ. FOR THE INTERESTED PARTIES.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <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">

BENIN &nbsp;J.S.C. SITTING AS A SINGLE JUSTICE OF THE
SUPREME COURT <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">

JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>BENIN, JSC:-
<o:p></o:p>Currently pending before the
Supreme Court is an application for an order of certiorari to quash a decision
of the High Court, Commercial Division, Kumasi. The interested parties have
since filed their statement of casein response to one filed by the applicant.
By the present application, the applicant seeks an extension of time within
which to file a reply to the interested parties’ statement of case, relying on
Rule 79 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I. 16). The reason proffered for
the delay in the affidavit in supportis that counsel for the applicant was
indisposed hence his inability to complete the draft reply within the time
stipulated by the rules. They therefore want the court to waive the
non-compliance with the rules and admit the reply.<o:p></o:p>The application appeared
at first glance to be harmless requiring little or no opposition. However, the
interested parties have seriously opposed the application. I am thus obliged to
examine the merits of the competing arguments. The affidavit in opposition
raises several issues; the relevant ones are summed up as follows:<o:p></o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That
the application is unknown to the rules of the court and to that extent it
ought to be dismissed at the threshold-paragraph 3;<o:p></o:p>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
That
the relief sought is misconceived, nebulous and absolutely without a legal basis-paragraph
4;<o:p></o:p>iii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The
application does not disclose a valid and subsisting Chambers registration
number and same is incompetent, void and infringes the law and should be
dismissed in limine-paragraph 5;<o:p></o:p>iv.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The
affidavit in support is fundamentally defective and the supposed deponent is
not a proper person to depose to the affidavit-paragraph 6;<o:p></o:p>v.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;