JOSEPH BOAHEN (APPELLANT) vs. FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE CENTRE AND STANBIC BANK GHANA LTD. [2016]DLCA4996

JOSEPH BOAHEN (APPELLANT) vs. FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE CENTRE AND STANBIC BANK GHA... [2016]DLCA4996

Date	2016-07-28
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/134/2016
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA4996

MARFUL-SAU JA (PRESIDING)

ACQUAYE JA

MARGARET WELBOURNE JA

KWEKU OSEI ASARE FOR THE APPELLANT

C.A. CHAMBERS FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT

[2016]DLCA4996
																																						<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 BOAHEN<o:p></o:p>(APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE
CENTRE AND STANBIC BANK GHANA LTD.<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, 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. H1/134/2016&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;DATE: 28TH JULY, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>KWEKU OSEI ASARE FOR THE
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">

C.A.
CHAMBERS FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT<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">

MARFUL-SAU
JA (PRESIDING), ACQUAYE JA, MARGARET WELBOURNE JA<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>MARFUL -SAU, JA:-
This appeal is against the decision of the High Court,(Financial and Economic
Crime Division) Accra dated the 27th May 2015 refusing an application by the
appellant praying for an order to defreeze his accounts with the Stanbic Bank
Ghana Ltd, which was the 2nd respondent before the trial court. The 1st
respondent to this appeal namely; the Financial Intelligence Centre had on the
23rd of December 2014 moved the trial court on an ex-parte application for the
confirmation of the freezing of appellant's three accounts with Stanbic Bank
Ghana Ltd. The application was brought under section 47 (2) of the Anti- Money
Laundering Act, 2008(Act 749) as amended. The 1st respondent initiated the
freezing of the said accounts when it was notified by the 2nd respondent that &nbsp;appellant had paid into the said accounts thirteen
cheques totalling GHC 384,596.00.The 1st respondent was notified of the
transaction through a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) from the 2nd
respondent as required by law. <o:p></o:p>The
appellant's application to the trial court to defreeze the accounts was
refused. The trial court in its ruling which is at page 98 to 100 of the record
of appeal, held that the application for the defreezing of the accounts was
premature as at the time of the application. It is against this ruling that the
appellant has appealed to this court on three grounds as follows:-<o:p></o:p>''1.The
learned High Court judge erred in ruling that there were allegations which the
respondents ought to have investigated.<o:p></o:p>2.The
learned High Court judge erred in law by not examining the reasonableness of
the said allegations.<o:p></o:p>3.The
learned High Court judge's ruling that the application to defreeze the
appellant's accounts with the 2nd respondent was premature was not supported by
the evidence laid before her.''<o:p></o:p>We
observed from the Notice of Appeal that even though Stanbic Bank Ghana Ltd was
cited as a respondent to this appeal no written submission was filed on its
behalf. The appeal was thus a contest between the appellant who was the
applicant at the trial court and the 1st respondent, the Financial Intelligence
Centre.<o:p></o:p>Before,
we proceed further it is necessary to address an issue raised by counsel for
the 1st respondent in his written submission regarding the competence of
appellant's grounds (1) and (2) as formulated and argued.&nbsp; First, dealing with&nbsp; ground (1), we again observed that even
though ground(1) as formulated in the Notice of Appeal did not allege error of
law, counsel for appellant reframed the said ground &nbsp;alleging an error of law and argued it as such
in his written submission. Ground(1) as argued is therefore flawed as it violates
the rules of this court. The original ground in the Notice of Appeal was
amended and argued without the leave of this court. That ground will
accordingly be struck out. <o:p></o:p>Secondly,
appellant in his ground (2) alleged error of law on the part of the trial
judge. The Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant which is at page 101 to 102,
however failed to give the particulars of the error as required by Rule 8 (4)
of the Court of Appeal Rules, CI 19, which provides thus:-<o:p></o:p>''Where the grounds of an appeal allege misdirection or
error in law, particulars of the misdirection or error shall be clearly
stated.''<o:p></o:p>This
court in several decisions have underscored the need for appellants to comply
with the rules that regulate its proceedings. An appeal it is said is the
creature of statute and it is trite law that an appellant who seeks to exercise
such right must strictly comply with the law that vests that right, in this
case the Court of Appeal Rules, CI 19. In the case of ZABRAMA v. SEGBEDZI (1991) 2 GLR 221, this court speaking through
Kpegah, JA (as he then was) emphasised that the requirement of providing
particulars of an error in law or a misdirection alleged in a notice of appeal
is to put the respondent and the court on notice on the particular area of the
law the dissatisfaction is alleged and helps to narrow down issues in the
hearing of the appeal.<o:p></o:p>The
Supreme Court dealing with a similar situation under Rule 6 of the Supreme
Court Rules, CI 16 in the case of DAHABIEH
v. S.A. TARQUI &amp; BROTHERS
(2001-2002) SCGLR 498 held at page 504 of the report per Adzoe</main>