JOSEPH BINEY vs. KINGSLEY AMANKWAH, TECNIK AGRICULTURAL CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT COMPANY LTD, TECNIK TRACTOR COMPANY LTD AND AMANK AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY LTD [2016]DLCA7979

JOSEPH BINEY vs. KINGSLEY AMANKWAH, TECNIK AGRICULTURAL CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPME... [2016]DLCA7979

Date	2016-04-26
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO.: H3/315/2016
Citation No.	[2016]DLCA7979

AGYEMANG (MRS) J.A. – SINGLE JUDGE

NANA AMA AMPONSAH FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

STAPHANIE AMARTEIFIO FOR DEFENDANTS / RESPONDENTS

[2016]DLCA7979
																																						<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<o:p></o:p>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, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

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;DATE: 26THAPRIL, 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:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

STAPHANIE
AMARTEIFIO FOR DEFENDANTS / RESPONDENTS<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p>AGYEMANG
(MRS) J.A. – SINGLE JUDGE<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 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

<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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">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>SGD<o:p></o:p>M. M. AGYEMANG<o:p></o:p>(JUSTICE OF THE
APPEAL)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></main>