BENJAMIN AMPONSAH MENSAH vs. MARGARET ANN MENSAH [2014]DLSC6387

Date	2014-04-16
Suit No.	SINGLE JUDGE REVIEW MOTION No: J7/7/2014
Citation No.	[2014]DLSC6387

JULIUS ANSAH (JSC) PRESIDING

JONES DOTSE (JSC)

PAUL BAFFOE-BONNIE (JSC)

BENJAMIN AMPONSAH MENSAH

MRS. VICTORIA BARTH WITH HER DIANA ASONABA DAPAAH AND PRISCILLA ANIMA AKYEAMPONG FOR THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANTS

MR. KIZITO BEYUO FOR THE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

[2014]DLSC6387
																																						<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" >BENJAMIN AMPONSAH MENSAH<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>MARGARET ANN MENSAH<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">

SINGLE JUDGE REVIEW MOTION No:
J7/7/2014&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; DATE: 16TH APRIL
2014<o:p></o:p>

MR.
KIZITO BEYUO FOR THE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>JULIUS
ANSAH (JSC) PRESIDING, JONES DOTSE (JSC), PAUL BAFFOE-BONNIE (JSC), BENJAMIN
AMPONSAH MENSAH&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;line-height:115%;
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>DOTSE JSC <o:p></o:p>It
is provided in article 134 (b) of the Constitution 1992 as follows: <o:p></o:p>"A single Justice of the Supreme
Court may exercise power vested in the Supreme Court not involving the decision
of a cause or matter before the Supreme Court, except (b) In civil matters, any
order, direction or decision made or given under this article may be varied,
discharged or reversed by the Supreme Court, constituted by three Justices of
the Supreme Court. <o:p></o:p>It
is also provided under Rule 73 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996, C. I. 16 as
follows:— <o:p></o:p>"An application pursuant to
article 134 of the Constitution in respect of a cause or matter, civil or
criminal, shall be made by motion on notice and shall be served on a party who
has interest in the cause or matter."<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;See also section 7 of the Courts Act, 1993
(Act 459) which is a repetition of article 134 of the Constitution 1992.<o:p></o:p>The
Applicants herein are the Executors of the Will of the Estate of Benjamin
Amponsah Mensah, (Deceased) the original Petitioner in the matrimonial cause
that is the subject of this Ruling whilst the Respondent herein is the
Respondent as well. <o:p></o:p>In
this case, a single Justice of this Court on the 26th day of November 2013
granted an ex-parte application for substitution in the following terms: <o:p></o:p>''And in the Matter of Motion Ex-parte
For Substitution of Bernard Mensah,&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
and Barbara Mensah being the deceased petitioner’s son and daughter
herein, respectively for Benjamin Amponsah Mensah
Petitioner/Appellant/Appellant. <o:p></o:p>I hereby certify that an order was
made as follows:— <o:p></o:p>The application to substitute the said
Benard Mensah and Barbara Mensah of London is hereby granted. Let them be
substituted as executors of the Petitioner/Appellant/Appellant herein. Let the
Registrar draw up the order for service on the within-named executors
forthwith." <o:p></o:p>In
order to understand the basis and the rationale for the said application and
why it was granted, we consider it appropriate to refer to the exact words used
in the motion paper and paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of
the affidavit in support of the said application. <o:p></o:p>"Motion ex-Parte for and on
behalf of the respondent/applicant for an order substituting Bernard Mensah and
Barbara Mensah being the deceased petitioner’s son and daughter respectively
for the petitioner herein and for such further and other orders as to this
Honourable Court may deem it fit." <o:p></o:p>The
respondent/applicant therein described in the process referred to is the
Respondent herein.<o:p></o:p>3. The Petitioner/Appellant/Appellant
(hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioner") on 20th April 1994
commenced the petition herein against the respondent in the High Court for the
dissolution of his marriage to the Applicant. <o:p></o:p>4. The Applicant cross-petitioned for
the dissolution of the marriage and for certain ancillary reliefs. <o:p></o:p>5. In the course of the proceedings
the High Court ordered the Petitioner to pay the Applicant maintenance pending
the determination of suit. <o:p></o:p>6.&nbsp;
The Petitioner appealed against the decision of the High Court to the
Court of Appeal and applied unsuccessfully to the High Court for stay of
execution of the order to pay maintenance pendente lite. <o:p></o:p>7.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Petitioner repeated his application for stay of execution in the
Court of Appeal but it was also dismissed whereupon he appealed against that
order to this Court.&nbsp; A copy of the
Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal is annexed hereto marked as "KBI". <o:p></o:p>