THE REPUBLIC vs. THE HIGH COURT (COM. DIV.) KUMASI EX PARTE: FIRST ATLANTIC BANK LIMITED AND 3 OTHERS [2014]DLSC4674

THE REPUBLIC vs. THE HIGH COURT (COM. DIV.) KUMASI EX PARTE: FIRST ATLANTIC BANK... [2014]DLSC4674

Date	2014-12-19
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO.J8/2/2015
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC4674

BENIN J.S.C.

DANIYAL ABDUL KARIM ESQ. FOR THE APPLICANT.

KWASI AFRIFA ESQ. FOR THE INTERESTED PARTIES.

[2014]DLSC4674
																																						<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 (APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>AND 3 OTHERS (INTERESTED
PARTIES)<o:p></o:p>[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">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;mso-outline-level:1;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL MOTION
NO.J8/2/2015&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;19TH DECEMBER 2014<o:p></o:p>

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

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>BENIN
&nbsp;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 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;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">RULING<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;
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;
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;&nb</main>