THE REPUBLIC vs. EMMANUEL SACKEY (REV.) & 5 ORS. EX-PARTE: BANK OF GHANA [2021]DLCA10848

Date	2021-05-20
Suit No.	SUIT NO. H1/200/2020
Citation No.	[2021]DLCA10848

ADJEI JA

MENSAH J.A

DODOO J.A

[2021]DLCA10848
																																						<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" >THE REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>EMMANUEL SACKEY (REV.) &amp; 5 ORS.<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>EX-PARTE: BANK OF GHANA<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL,
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;">

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p>ADJEI JA, MENSAH J.A, DODOO
J.A<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%;tab-stops:185.25pt;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;ADJEI,
J.A:<o:p></o:p>I
had the benefit of the draft judgment of my brother Philip Bright Mensah JA and
I am in support of the reasoning and conclusion, however, I would like to
discuss few matters in my own words. An appeal is a creature of statute and a
person who files an appeal shall ensure that that person complies with the
enactment creating the appeal together with the procedural laws of the court
seised with appellate jurisdiction. Article 137 of the Constitution confers an
appellate jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal to entertain appeals from the
judgement of the High Court. Article 137 of the Constitution provides thus:<o:p></o:p>“(1)
The Court of Appeal shall have jurisdiction throughout Ghana to hear and
determine, subject to the provisions of this Constitution, appeals from a
judgment, decree or order of the High Court and Regional Tribunals and such
other appellate jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by this Constitution or
any other law.<o:p></o:p>(2)
Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, an appeal shall lie as of
right from a judgment, decree or order of the High Court and a Regional Tribunal
to the Court of Appeal.”<o:p></o:p>The
constitutional provision above was restated verbatim by section 11 (1) &amp;
(2) of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) and further conferred appellate
jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal to entertain appeals from the Circuit Court
in both interlocutory and final appeals. Interlocutory appeals are filed with
the leave of the Circuit Court or with the leave of the Court of Appeal after
the Circuit Court has refused to grant it.<o:p></o:p>The
Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (C.I. 19) provides for time frame within which both
final and interlocutory appeals from the High Court, Regional Tribunals and the
Circuit Court to the Court of Appeal shall be filed and also addresses
extension of time in final appeals to the Court of Appeal.<o:p></o:p>Rule
8 of the Court of Appeal Rules, C.I.19 provides for the contents of a notice of
appeal duly filed within the time frame provided by Rule 9 of C.I.19. Rules 8
sub rules (4)-(7) of the Court of Appeal Rules provides thus:<o:p></o:p>“(4)
Where the grounds of appeal allege misdirection or error of law, particulars of
the misdirection or error shall be clearly stated.<o:p></o:p>(5)
The grounds of appeal shall set out concisely and under distinct heads the
grounds on which the appellant intends to rely at the hearing of the appeal
without an argument or a narrative and shall be numbered consecutively.<o:p></o:p>(6)
A ground which is vague or general in terms or which does not disclose a
reasonable ground of appeal is not permitted, except the general ground that
the judgment is against the weight of evidence.<o:p></o:p>(7)
A ground of appeal or a part of the appeal which is not permitted under subrule
(6) may be struck out by the Court of its own motion or an application by the
respondent.”<o:p></o:p>The
notice of appeal filed by the Respondents/Appellants who were convicted of
contempt contains four grounds of appeal. The Applicant/Respondent has urged
the Court to strike &nbsp;out grounds(a) (b)
and (c) of the appeal as having being filed in clear violation of Rule 8
subrules (4) and (6) of the Court of Appeal Rules. The ground (b) of the appeal
provides that the trial Court misdirected itself on what constitutes contempt.
I find the ground of appeal vague and at the same time non-compliant with rule
8 subrule (4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, C.I. 19, that is, where an
appellant who alleges an error of law or misdirection fails to provide the
particulars of the error or misdirection and ground (b) of the appeal is not
maintainable in law. The ground of appeal does not inform the Court either in
tabulated form or description in the particulars of the misdirection being
alleged and same is struck out.<o:p></o:p>The
Appellants in their ground (c) of the appeal alleged that the trial Court erred
in convicting and sentencing the Appellants for contempt. The Appellants failed
to provide for the particulars of the error committed by the trial Court to
cloth this Court with jurisdiction to discuss and exercise its corrective
powers over the ruling of the trial High Court properly pending before it on
appeal. I further strike out ground (c) of the appeal for having being filed in
clear violation of rule 8 subrule (4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, C.I. 19.<o:p></o:p>The
ground (a) of the appeal may be saved for determination as in substance
suggests that the appeal is against the weight of evidence on record. This
ground has been exhaustively discussed by my respected brother, Philip Bright
Mensah JA, and I</main>