KWADWO DANKWA & ORS vs. ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI LTD [2017]DLCA3189

Date	2017-04-12
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. H1/33/2013
Citation No.	[2017]DLCA3189

AYEBI J.A. (PRESIDING)

TORKORNOO (MRS) J. A.

DOMAKYAAREH (MRS) J. A

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS – KWAME ASARE BEDIAKO

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT – KIZITO BEYUO

[2017]DLCA3189
																																						<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" >KWADWO
DANKWA &amp; ORS<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ANGLOGOLD
ASHANTI LTD<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT
OF APPEAL, KUMASI]<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. H1/33/2013&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 12TH APRIL, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS – KWAME ASARE BEDIAKO<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT – KIZITO BEYUO<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">

AYEBI
J.A. (PRESIDING), TORKORNOO (MRS) J. A., DOMAKYAAREH (MRS) J. A.<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&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><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGEMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>TORKORNOO
(MRS), J.A.<o:p></o:p>This
appeal has much to teach us about the importance of using the properprocedure
when cases are presented in court. Order
2 Rule 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004 CI 47 directs that
all actions must be commenced by
Writ of Summons. It reads:<o:p></o:p>Commencement of proceedings<o:p></o:p>2. Subject to any existing
enactment to the contrary, all civil proceedings shall be commenced by the
filing of a writ of summons.<o:p></o:p>Order 19 rule 1 (2) also
provides that every application in pending proceedings shall be made by motion.
The exception to and fusion of these two modes of proceeding is created in Order 19 rule 1 (2) which provides
that:<o:p></o:p>(2) Proceedings by which an
application is to be made to the court or a judge of the court under any
enactment shall be initiated by motion and where an enactment provides that an
application shall be made by some other means, an application by motion shall
be deemed to satisfy the provision of the enactment as to the making of the
application.<o:p></o:p>Thus the
only time court proceedings may be originated by motion is when an enactment
authorizes that an application may be made to a court for a particular order
pursuant to that enactment. In such cases, the motion is not presented within a
pending proceeding but in originating an action.<o:p></o:p>In March
2011, four persons named Kwadwo Dankwa, Francis Adom, Kwaku Adade, and Yaw
Boateng filed a motion ex parte numbered COURT CASE NO 12/150/2011 against the
Respondent in this appeal. They alleged in the motion paper that they
represented 253 applicants whose names were attached to the motion. In the
supporting affidavit, the second applicant stated that they had the authority
of the 253 persons to swear to the matters in the application. The attached list
is found from a copy of the motion on pages 39 to 46 of the Record of Appeal
(ROA). The motion was for ‘...extension
of time within which to commence an
action ...for the recovery of due salaries....from 1994 to 2001...’.<o:p></o:p>There was
no reference to which section of the Limitations
Act, 1972, NRCD 54 that had authorized this originating motion.<o:p></o:p>The
application was heard by Justice Azumah who granted it on 28th March 2011. A
copy of the order granting the leave can be found on page 21 of the ROA.<o:p></o:p>On 29th
March 2011, the above named four men and 249 others (hereinafter referred to as
Appellants) whose capacity as Plaintiffs were endorsed on the writ and their
names attached to the writ commenced an action against the Defendant/Respondent
(hereinafter referred to as Respondent) which can be found on page 3 of the
ROA. The suit is numbered C3/4/11 although counsel for Respondent described the
suit number as H1/33/2013 on page 1 of his submissions before this court. The
Respondent entered conditional appearance by counsel and applied on 19th April
2011 to </main>