JOSEPH BINEY vs. KINGSLEY AMANKWAH, TECNIK AGRICULTURAL CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY LTD, TECNIK TRACTOR COMPANY LTD AND AMANK AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY LTD [2016]DLCA4995

JOSEPH BINEY vs. KINGSLEY AMANKWAH, TECNIK AGRICULTURAL CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPM... [2016]DLCA4995

Date	2016-04-26
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H3/315/2016
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA4995

AGYEMANG (MRS) J.A

NANA AMA AMPONSAH FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

STAPHANIE AMARTEIFIO FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

[2016]DLCA4995
																																						<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" >JOSEPH BINEY<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KINGSLEY AMANKWAH,
TECNIK AGRICULTURAL CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY LTD, TECNIK TRACTOR
COMPANY LTD AND AMANK AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS/
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></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. H3/315/2016&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; &nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 26TH APRIL, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>NANA AMA AMPONSAH FOR
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT<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">

STAPHANIE
AMARTEIFIO FOR DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS<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">

AGYEMANG
(MRS) J.A. – SINGLE JUDGE<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">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>The application to amend the notice of appeal was objected
to by opposing counsel on the ground that the application had been made at the wrong
forum. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In her submission, Rule 6(7) of
the Supreme Court Rules C.I. 16 mandates the application to be brought before
the Supreme Court.<o:p></o:p>Rule 6(7) Reads:<o:p></o:p>“Not withstanding Sub Rule (1) to
(6) of this rule the court (a) may grant an appellant leave to amend the ground
of appeal upon such terms as the court may think it; and (b) shall not, in
deciding the appeal, confine itself to the grounds set forth by the appellant
or be precluded for resting it’s decision on a ground not set forth by the
appellant”.<o:p></o:p>It is therefore clear that
Rule 6(7) applies only when the appeal is entered at the Supreme Court by the transmission
on the record from the Registry of this Court to the Registry of the Supreme
Court and that court becomes seised with jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p>Nor is Rule 7 canvassed by
the learned counsel of the appellant/applicant, the applicable Rule in this
application for Rule 7 deals with an application for leave to bring an appeal.<o:p></o:p>That the Supreme Court,
like this court becomes seised with jurisdiction over an appeal only when the
appeal is entered by the transmission of the record of appeal to its Registry
has been pronounced upon by the Supreme Court: Per Dr. Date-Bah SSC in Civil Motion No.: J8/29/2013 of 27th/3/13
(unreported), “On the face of this provision, before the transmission of the record of
appeal to the Supreme Court, it does not have jurisdiction to deal with
interlocutory matters relating to a particular appeal, unless an application
can be granted on any of its other bases of jurisdiction such as its
supervisory jurisdiction.”<o:p></o:p>The right to bringing
interlocutory appeals such as repeat applications for leave to appeal, stay of
execution etc, are specifically provided for in the Supreme Court Rules C.I.
16.&nbsp; Every other interlocutory
application not specifically placed with the provision of the Supreme Court by
the Rules, is outside its jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p>In the circumstance, the
proper forum for bringing the instant application is this court and the
application has been properly brought.<o:p></o:p>In view of opposing
counsel’s indication that she does not object to the application for amendment
sought, I will go ahead to grant the amendment sought in terms of the notice of
motion filed on 6/4/16.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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></main>