DENNIS TORGBENU, TORGBE KUDZE AND MICHAEL LARWEH MLORFE vs. TORGBE NAKAKPO DUGBAZA VIII [2019]DLSC5616

DENNIS TORGBENU, TORGBE KUDZE AND MICHAEL LARWEH MLORFE vs. TORGBE NAKAKPO DUG... [2019]DLSC5616

Date	2019-01-30
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/39/2018
Citation No.	[2019]DLSC5616

ADINYIRA (MRS) JSC (PRESIDING)

YEBOAH JSC

BENIN JSC

MARFUL-SAU JSC

KOTEY JSC

ISAAC M. LARBI FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT /APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT.

EDWARD DARLINGTON FOR PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ APPELLANTS.

[2019]DLSC5616
																																						<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" >DENNIS TORGBENU, TORGBE KUDZE AND MICHAEL LARWEH MLORFE&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>TORGBE NAKAKPO DUGBAZA
VIII<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPLICANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[SUPREME COURT, 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">

CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/39/2018&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &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: 30TH JANUARY,
2019<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>ISAAC M. LARBI FOR THE
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT /APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT.<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">

EDWARD
DARLINGTON FOR PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ APPELLANTS.<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">

ADINYIRA
(MRS) JSC (PRESIDING), YEBOAH JSC, BENIN JSC, MARFUL-SAU JSC, KOTEY JSC<o:p></o:p>

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

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>MARFUL-SAU, JSC: -<o:p></o:p>This interlocutory appeal
is taken against the ruling of the Court of Appeal, sitting at Ho. The facts of
the case relevant to this appeal are that on the 18th of May 2016,
the High Court, sitting at Sogakope delivered a ruling in an interlocutory
matter which went against the&nbsp; Defendant/Appellant/Applicant/<o:p></o:p>Respondent herein referred
to as Respondent. Dissatisfied with the said ruling the Respondent initiated an
Appeal to the Court of Appeal, through a Notice of Appeal filed on the 9th
of June 2016. Pursuant to the Notice of Appeal, the Respondent filed a Motion
on Notice for Leave to file Additional Grounds of Appeal on the 25th
April 2017. The Plaintiff/ Respondent/ Respondent/ Appellant, herein referred
to as Appellant, resisted the application and raised a preliminary point of law
as to the competence of the appeal filed by the Respondent. The Appellant
argued that the Notice of Appeal filed by the Respondent was outside the
prescribed 21 days allowed for Interlocutory Appeals. He contended that the ruling,
subject of the Appeal was delivered on the 18th May 2016 and the
Notice of Appeal was filed on the 9th of June 2016, which was one
day outside the 21 days limited for such appeals.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The Court of Appeal dismissed the preliminary
objection in a ruling delivered on the 26th of July 2017. It is
against the said ruling that Appellant has lodged this Appeal urging this court
to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal, which held that the Notice of
Appeal was filed within time and for that matter the appeal was competent.
Appellant formulated two (2) grounds of appeal as follows:-<o:p></o:p>i.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
ruling was against the weight of evidence.<o:p></o:p>ii.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The
learned trial Judges erred when they held that the Notice of Appeal was
legitimately filed and therefore not incompetent.<o:p></o:p>Having read the record of appeal, we are of the
opinion that this appeal raises a fundamental issue as to whether the Notice of
Appeal filed by the Respondent on the 9th June 2016 was competent?
We will therefore address the grounds formulated by the appellant in terms of
the fundamental issue.<o:p></o:p>It is trite that an Appeal is a creature of
Statute or the Constitution and for that matter a party who intends to invoke
the appellate jurisdiction of a court must strictly comply and or satisfy the
law that grants him or her right of appeal.<o:p></o:p>In the case of
Sandema-Nab v. Asangalisa and Others {1996-97} SCGLR 302, this court delivered
at page 306 of the report as follows:-<o:p></o:p>