TAYLOR & TAYLOR COMPANY. vs. GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY [2017]DLHC11483

Date	2017-04-03
Suit No.	SUIT NO: AC 905/2014
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC11483

HER LADYSHIP NOVISI AFUA ARYENE (MRS.)

S.K. AMOAH ESQ. FOR PLAINTIFF.

MAXWELL OWUSU BOADI ESQ. FOR ODARTE LAMPTEY ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT.

[2017]DLHC11483
																																						<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" >TAYLOR &amp; TAYLOR COMPANY.<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>GHANA REVENUE AUTHORITY<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT
NO: AC 905/2014&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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:
3RD APRIL, 2017<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>S.K. AMOAH ESQ., FOR PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

MAXWELL OWUSU
BOADI ESQ., FOR ODARTE LAMPTEY ESQ., FOR DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HER LADYSHIP NOVISI AFUA ARYENE (MRS.)<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;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:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;This
is an application by the defendant praying this court to set aside the
garnishee order dated I 51 March 2017 on grounds that the order was in clear
violation of Order 27 Rule 3 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997, CI 19. Moving
the motion, counsel submitted that the garnishee order having been made when
the mandatory 7 day automatic stay under the rules had not expired, was void
and of no legal effect. And that same cannot be cured under Order 81.<o:p></o:p>The
events leading to the instant application are that on 27111of February 2017,
the Court of Appeal refused applicant's prayer for stay of execution pending
appeal. On 1st March 2017, respondent's application for garnishee order nisi
was granted by this court. Referring to Republic
v High Court (Commercial Division) Accra; Ex parte Millicom Ghana ltd &amp;
Others (Superphone co ltd Interested Party [2009) SCGLR 41 and Halle &amp; Sons
SA vrs Bank of Ghana &amp; Warm Weather Enterprise ltd [2011) 1 SCGLR 378 at
382, counsel for applicant submitted that the court lacked jurisdiction to
hear the garnishee application because the 7 mandatory days under Cl 19 had not
expired.<o:p></o:p>The application
was opposed on grounds that the non-compliance was curable under Order 81 and
that the garnishee order had not in any way prejudiced the applicant's case as
there is no evidence that they filed a repeat application for stay of execution
before the Supreme Court.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;Counsel for respondent submitted that the
automatic stay in the rules was intended to enable a party whose application
had been refused, to take further steps but the evidence shows that the
applicant in the instant case did not file any appeal and has failed to
demonstrate that the garnishee order had prejudiced its case in anyway.<o:p></o:p>Rule
27(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (CI 19) on which the instant
application is grounded stipulates:<o:p></o:p>There
shall be a stay of execution of the judgment or decision, or of proceedings
under the judgment or decision appealed<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:107%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">a)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
For a period of seven
days immediately following the giving of the judgment or decision.<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:107%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-US">b)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
For a period of seven
days immediately following the determination by the court below of an
application under sub-rule (I) (a) where the application is refused by the
court below.<o:p></o:p>Where
a court makes an order without jurisdiction, same can be set aside on
application by the affected party. The law is that where there is no
jurisdiction, the judgment and proceedings are not irregular but void.<o:p></o:p>I
have read Ex parte Millicom Ghana ltd (supra) cited by counsel for applicant
and find the ruling relevant in terms of the facts before the court. In holding
2 thereof, the Supreme Cowt ruled that the trial court lacked jurisdiction when
it purported to hear the committal proceedings less than seven days after the
decision of the court of appeal. Their lordships ruled that where the statutory
seven day period provided under the Court of Appeal Rules 1997 (CI 19) had not
elapsed, the trial court was not seised with jurisdiction to entertain the
committal proceedings. The court observed that the trial court ought to have
stayed its hands for the period of seven days in compliance with rule 27(3) (b)
of CI 19 before proceeding to hear the committal proceedings.<o:p></o:p>It
has been submitted on behalf of the respondent that the automatic stay under
Rule 27 (3) of CI 19, is intended to enable the losing party take steps to
appeal; an action the applicant in the instant case failed to take.
Consequently, it was submitted that it has failed to demonstrate that the
garnishee proceedings would prejudice its case in anyway. Counsel urged the
court to apply order 81 to cure the irre</main>