EDIL TECHNO CONST. LTD vs. KLAFGO 6 LTD [2018]DLHC10101

Date	2018-08-23
Suit No.	SUIT NO. AC/641/2013
Citation No.	[2018]DLHC10101

JUSTICE GEORGE BUADI J.

OSCAR ASANTE NUNU FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT PRESENT (HOLDING THE BRIEF OF MS. EFIBA AMIHERE)

EUNAS KOFI ESHUN FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT PRESENT (HOLDING BRIEF OF SAMUEL ADU BOAHEN)

[2018]DLHC10101
																																						<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" >EDIL TECHNO CONST. LTD<o:p></o:p>(PLT/J/CR/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>KLAFGO 6 LTD<o:p></o:p>(DEFT/J/D/APP/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT (COMMERCIAL DIV. 5), 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;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">SUIT NO. AC/641/2013&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;DATE: 23 AUGUST 2018<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>OSCAR ASANTE
NUNU FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT PRESENT (HOLDING THE BRIEF OF MS. EFIBA AMIHERE) <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" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">EUNAS KOFI ESHUN FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT PRESENT
(HOLDING BRIEF OF SAMUEL ADU BOAHEN) <o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>JUSTICE GEORGE
BUADI J.<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;line-height:115%;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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;1&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This is an application for review of the court’s
ruling, delivered on 16 July 2018. The application was brought pursuant to
Order 42 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2005 (C.I. 47). The applicant
is the plaintiff in this suit, who on 18 December 2017 secured final judgment
in this court after full trial. Defendant, the respondent herein on 9 March
2018 not only filed appeal against the judgement of the court but also applied
to this court to stay execution of the judgment pending determination of the appeal.
<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;2&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The court in its ruling on 16 July
2018 not only stayed execution of the final judgment, it also pursuant to its
inherent jurisdiction struck out the writ of summons. Describing the ruling as a
hard one, the court found that the writ was issued by a non-lawyer contrary to
statute, an Act of Parliament – the Legal Profession Act, 1960 (Act 32).
The court held that the writ of summons as a nullity including all processes
and proceedings founded on thereon including the final judgment of the court. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;3&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Plaintiff on 30 July 2018 filed this application
pursuant to Order 42 of C.I.47 for a review of the decision. It was contended
by counsel largely that the court failed to advert its mind to the Supreme
Court decision in the Republic v. High
Court (Lands Division) Accra, Exparte NumoAdjei Kwarko II; Lebanon Society
(Interested Party)<a href="file:///C:/Users/aggie/Desktop/2020-21/Criminal/Edil%20Techno%20-%20Review%20application%20(2021_01_25%2010_26_20%20UTC).docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a>
which according to counsel is in tandem with Article 29 of the Constitution on
the application of retrospective law.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;4&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Counsel for respondent raised mainly
two issues of attack on the application, impugning first, the timeliness of the
application, and thus the court’s jurisdiction to entertain it. According to
counsel, the applicant is out of time in bringing the application making
reference to subrule 2 of Rule 2 of Order 42, which provides that application for review must be made within 14 days from the
date on which the judgment or order in respect of which review is sought is
entered or made. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;5&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; I have earlier stated that the ruling,
the subject matter of this review application was given on 16 July 2018, whilst
applicant filed the application on 30 July 2018. By the reckoning of time within
the provisions of Order 80 Rule 1 subrule 2 and 5, I hold that the applicant is
within the 14 days as stipulated. Secondly, respondent counsel flayed the application on the face of the
requisite landmarks of Order 42, contending that the application fails to fall
within the restricted boundaries of Order 42. <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;