ECOBANK GH LTD vs. ALUMINIUM ENT. LTD [2017]DLHC3694

Date	2017-04-13
Suit No.	SUIT NO. BFS/166/06
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3694

GEORGE K. KOOMSON JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT

ASONABA DAPAAH FOR PLTFF/JUDGMENT/DR/APP

KOFI SOMUAH FOR DEFF/JUDGMENT/CR/RESP.

[2017]DLHC3694
																																						<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" >ECOBANK GH LTD<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ALUMINIUM ENT. LTD<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (COMMERCIAL
DIVISION), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>SUIT NO. BFS/166/06&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;13TH APRIL, 2017<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">

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

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ASONABA DAPAAH FOR PLTFF/JUDGMENT/DR/APP <o:p></o:p>KOFI SOMUAH FOR DEFF/JUDGMENT/CR/RESP. <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

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

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>GEORGE K. KOOMSON JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

</div>RULING<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

</div>&nbsp;This is an
application for an order to vary the order of the court made on the 11th February,
2016, granting a conditional stay of execution of the judgment of the court
dated 3rd November, 2015. I have read the application and the
supporting affidavit. I have also read the affidavit in opposition. I have also
given consideration to the oral submissions made by counsel for and against the
grant or otherwise of the application. <o:p></o:p>I have given thoughtful consideration to the principles governing
the variation of orders made by a court. Consideration has also been given to
the provisions of Order 42 of C.I.47. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The present application has been brought under the inherent
jurisdiction of the court. However, the purpose or intendment of the
application will result in a review of the decision of my Senior Sister Barbara
Ackah-Yensu J.A. (sitting as an additional High <o:p></o:p>Court Judge). <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It appears to me that, the Plaintiff/Judgment/Debtor/Applicant,
realising that it is caught by time, decided to invoke the inherent
jurisdiction of the court. Order 42 rule 2(2) and (3) of C.I. 47 has placed a
limitation to the time within which a party can ask for a review. The rule 2(2)
which is applicable to the present circumstance requires applications for
review to be filed within 14 days. Be it as it may, the question that the court
should decide is as to whether or not the court’s inherent jurisdiction should
be exercised in the present circumstance. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>It is trite law that a judge should not grant an application for
review of his judgment or of an order made by him where the only basis for the
application was that a point of law, which was in fact brought to his attention
or notice during the hearing and before judgment was delivered or the order was
made, needed re-consideration: see the case of AEGIS SHIPPING CO. LTD v VOLTA LINES LTD [1973] 1 GLR 438, In the
instance case, after the decision of the court granting conditional stay of
execution to the applicant, the Applicant repeated their application at the
Court of Appeal. The said Court of Appeal dismissed the application and
confirmed the decision of the High Court. The applicant not satisfied with the
decision of the Court of Appeal sitting by a single judge, filed another
application for an order to discharge the order of refusal of stay delivered by
the single judge of the Court of Appeal. This <o:p></o:p>application was brought under Article 138 of the 1992 Constitution
and Section 12(b) of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) as amended. The Court of
Appeal dismissed the said application in the following words: <o:p></o:p>“Besides, the
applicant were unable to establish that this court presided over by a single
Judge wrongly exercised his discretion in refusing the stay application of the
applicant, the subject matter of this case. Co</main>