ERNESTINA BOATENG vs. PHYLLIS SERWAH, BOAMPONG NYAMEKYE AND MARK ADU PREMPEH JNR [2016]DLCA4724

Date	2016-07-27
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.H3/376/2016
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA4724

AGYEMANG (MRS.) JA

[2016]DLCA4724
																																						<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" >ERNESTINA BOATENG<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>PHYLLIS SERWAH, BOAMPONG
NYAMEKYE AND MARK ADU PREMPEH JNR<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT
OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION), 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.H3/376/2016&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 27TH
JULY, 2016<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">

</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;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>AGYEMANG
JA:<o:p></o:p>On the 30th of July 2012, the High Court
Human Rights Division entered judgment for the plaintiff/respondent/applicant
(hereafter referred to as the plaintiff) in a suit brought against the
defendants/appellants/respondents (hereafter referred to as the defendants).
The latter brought an appeal against the said decision before this court. On
the 4th of February 2016, this court delivered judgment in favour of
the defendants. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the said judgment filed a notice of
appeal per solicitor. On the face of the notice of appeal, the firm name
Oseawuo Chambers appears under a signature. The name of the solicitor does not
appear, nor is his/her licence number indicated.<o:p></o:p>The defendants per solicitor filed a notice of
motion on the 11th of May 2016, praying for an order striking out
the appeal for non-disclosure of the name and number of the appellant. It was
the contention of the defendants as applicants that the notice of appeal signed
by a firm of solicitors Oseawuo Chambers and not a practising lawyer was
incompetent.<o:p></o:p>The plaintiff filed an affidavit in opposition by
which she denied the allegation of incompetence.<o:p></o:p>Before the application could be heard, learned
counsel for the plaintiff raised a preliminary objection to the application on
two grounds: the competency of a single Justice of this court to hear the
instant application, and the competency of the Court of Appeal to deal with the
application.<o:p></o:p>On the invitation of the court, the parties have
filed written submissions. <o:p></o:p>Having read the written submissions of both
parties, it is my view that the preliminary objection raised by the applicant
has merit. <o:p></o:p>I say this having regard to both grounds of
objection, being (1) the challenge of the competency of a single justice of
this court to hear and determine the instant application and, (2) the
competency of the Court of Appeal to deal with this matter which is before the
Supreme Court.<o:p></o:p>The jurisdiction of a single Justice of this court
is contained in Article 138 of the 1992 Constitution which reads: “A single
Justice of the Court of Appeal may exercise a power vested in the Court of
Appeal not involving the decision of a cause or matter before the Court of
Appeal…”<o:p></o:p>Learned counsel rightly set out three incidents
form the jurisdiction thus set out being: the Single Justice <o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">(1)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
can
only exercise the jurisdiction that is vested on the Court of Appeal;<o:p></o:p><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;">(2)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;