ATAA ASHIE NIKOI vs. CHARLES QUIST [2014]DLSC3002

Date	2014-11-14
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.J8/97/2014
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC3002

BENIN J.S.C

BRIGHT AKWETEY ESQ. PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPLICANT.

BRIGETTA OSEI OWUSU ESQ.WITH HER OBENG SEKYI FOR THE DEFENDANT /RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.

[2014]DLSC3002
																																						<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" >ATAA ASHIE
NIKOI<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>CHARLES
QUIST<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.J8/97/2014&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; &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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 14TH NOVEMBER, 2014<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>BRIGHT AKWETEY ESQ. &nbsp;PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/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">

</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
J.S.C. SITTING AS A SINGLE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT&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;&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;&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;&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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>BENIN,
JSC:-&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>On 24th May
2013 the ordinary bench of this court gave judgment against the plaintiff/appellant/applicant
hereinafter called the applicant in favour of the defendant/respondent/respondent
hereinafter called the respondent. The applicant sought a review but was out of
time, so he applied for extension of time to do so. He was granted leave by
this court presided over by a single judge, Akamba JSC. He was granted ten days
from 26th June 2013, the date of the order, in which to file the
application for review. He filed the application within time on July 5 2013.
When the application came up for hearing before the review panel, Counsel for
the applicant decided to withdraw it apparently because it was filed in
disregard to the rules of practice and procedure in the sense that no reference
was made therein to the Judge who had made the order and the date thereof. The
court accordingly struck it out as withdrawn.<o:p></o:p>Thereafter the applicant took
some other steps to bring into fruition his desire to have the court’s judgment
of 24th May 2013 reviewed, but he failed at each and every attempt
made. This is the third bite at the cherry. One wonders whether the applicant
does not know what he is doing for the impression is that he is just gambling
around the rules in the hope that one will be favourable to him. One should not
lose sight of the fact that the principles against vexatious litigation and
abuse of process should equally apply to applications to the court especially
when the object sought by them is the same, as in this case. Nonetheless in the
interest of justice I have decided to consider the application on its merits.<o:p></o:p>By the present application
filed on 29th August 2014, the applicant is asking for two reliefs
from this court, viz: (i) for an order to relist the application for review
filed on 5th July 2013, and (ii) for leave to amend the said
application. Counsel’s argument was simply that the application was withdrawn
and was not dismissed on merit so they could apply to relist same. On the other
hand counsel for the respondent cited rule 79 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996
(C.I.16) and submitted that the applicant was barred from coming back since the
court did not waive the irregularity in the application when it struck it out.<o:p></o:p>Rule 79 of C.I.16
provides: <o:p></o:p>Where a party to any
proceedings before the court fails to comply with any provision of these Rules
or with the terms of any order or direction given or with any rule of practice
or procedure directed or determined by the Court, the failure to comply shall
be a bar to further prosecution of proceedings unless the Court considers that
the non-compliance should be waived.<o:p></o:p>Under this provision the
Court could decide to dismiss an application for non- compliance with the terms
of its order, or it could disregard the non-compliance and admit the
application, or postpone it and allow the applicant to comply with it. In this
case the applicant decided to withdraw and the court allowed him. The Court at
this stage could have barred him from further prosecuti</main>