GAMING COMMISSION (PLAINTIFF) vs. NATIONAL LOTTERY AUTHORTY AND 8 ORS (DEFENDANTS) [2016]DLHC7417

GAMING COMMISSION (PLAINTIFF) vs. NATIONAL LOTTERY AUTHORTY AND 8 ORS (DEFENDANT... [2016]DLHC7417

Date	2016-03-04
Suit No.	SUIT NO. OCC/89/14
Citation No.	[2016]DLHC7417

HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU J.

MR. MAXWELL LOGAN FOR THE APPLICANT WITH SHIKA AGYEMANG

MR ERNEST KUSI FOR KULENDI FOR THE 1ST DEFEDNANT/RESPONDENT WITH GEORGINA ARTHUR

[2016]DLHC7417
																																						<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" >GAMING COMMISSION<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NATIONAL LOTTERY
AUTHORTY AND 8 ORS<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANTS)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL 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">

SUIT
NO. OCC/89/14&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
4TH MARCH, 2016<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p>MR. MAXWELL LOGAN FOR THE
APPLICANT WITH SHIKA AGYEMANG <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">

MR
ERNEST KUSI FOR KULENDI FOR THE&nbsp;&nbsp; 1ST
DEFEDNANT/RESPONDENT WITH GEORGINA ARTHUR <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS LORDSHIP SAMUEL K. A.
ASIEDU, J.<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="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;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>The instant application filed on the 16th
day of February, 2016 by the 5th defendant herein seeks an order of
the court to vary an order to deposit money made on the 3rd day of December,
2015. The body of the motion as well as the supporting affidavit wrongly stated
that the court order which it seeks variation thereof was made on the 4th
day of December, 2015.<o:p></o:p>The court had, on the 3rd day of December
2015, made an order that the applicant herein pays, the fees/charges/revenue
which was due to be paid to either the plaintiff or the 1st
defendant in this matter, to the Registrar of this court within 7 days from the
3rd day of December, 2015. Equally, the other defendants who were
obliged to pay fees/charges/revenues to either the plaintiff or the 1st
defendant were all ordered to pay such monies to the Registrar of the court.
The monies were to be deposited in an interest yielding account by the
Registrar pending the court’s determination of the case. It is this order that
applicant seeks to vary. <o:p></o:p>The plaintiff herein has indicated to the court
that it is not opposed to the application. However, the 1st
defendant is opposed to the application on a number of grounds as indicated in
its affidavit in opposition.<o:p></o:p>The motion is silent on whether the application is
premised upon the inherent jurisdiction of the court or on the powers given the
court under Order 42 of the High Court Rules of Civil Procedure CI 47.<o:p></o:p>The court wishes to point out, as already
indicated, that the order being sought to be varied was made on the 3rd
day of December, 2015. If the application is therefore premised upon the powers
given to the court to vary or review its orders under Order 42 of the Rules of
the High Court then the instant application which was filed on the 16th
day of February 2016 is out of time considering that under rule 2(2) of Order
42 of the Rules of Procedure of the High Court; such application ought to have
been filed within fourteen days from the date on which the order sought to be
reviewed was made.<o:p></o:p>However, if the motion is premised on the inherent
jurisdiction of the court then one needs to consider whether conditions for the
invocation of the court’s inherent jurisdiction has been satisfied by the
applicant. <o:p></o:p>In Omaboe
vs. Kwame [1978] GLR 122, the court set out the circumstances under which a
party could pray the court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. According to
the Court of Appeal<o:p></o:p>“the
court had an inherent jurisdiction to set aside or vary its own orders which it
could exercise on three broad bases, namely: (1) if there was some clerical
mistake in a judgment or order, (2) if there was some error in a judgment or
order which arose from any accidental slip or omission and (3) if the meaning
and intention of the court was not expressed in its judgment or order. In so
far as any policy reason could be extracted from those illustrations, it seemed
the courts gave themselves this power when some fault was attributable to the
court itself by reason of human error and a party dignified by it was entitled
ex debito justitiae to have the court put right its own error.”<o:p></o:p>In respect of the substance of the application, the
main reason proffered by the applicant for its prayer is captured in paragraphs
7 and 8 of the supporting affidavit. The said paragraphs read:<o:p></o:p>7. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That immediately thereupon, I was instructed to apply to the
Honourable Court for an Order to Vary the Order of 7th December,
2015 on the ground that they being a bank, they are perfectly in a position to
open an account for the Registrar of the Commercial Court, pay in the funds and
invest it as ordered by the Honourable Court the same way any other court could
have done.<o:p></o:p>8.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; That since deposit mobilization is the key contest amongst
all the banks it would not put them at a prejudice if those funds were to be
paid to one of the competitor banks when they can equally do same.<o:p></o:p>