LA DADEKOTOPON YOUTH ASSOCIATION vs. NII KPOBI TETTEY TSURU III (SUBST. BY NII OBODAI ADAI IV FOR AND ON BEHALF OF LA STOOL) 18 & ORS. AND EDMUND JOSEPH OBODAI MENSAH [2021]DLSC10168

LA DADEKOTOPON YOUTH ASSOCIATION vs. NII KPOBI TETTEY TSURU III (SUBST. BY NII... [2021]DLSC10168

Date	2021-03-31
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/20/2021
Citation No.	[2021]DLSC10168

YEBOAH CJ (PRESIDING)

PWAMANG JSC

AMEGATCHER JSC

OWUSU (MS.) JSC

AMADU JSC

MOHAMMED SAHNOON FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.

KWESI AUSTIN FOR THE 1ST TO 9TH AND 11TH TO 20TH DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS.

NII KPAKPO SAMOA ADDO FOR THE 10TH DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPILCANT/RESPONDENT.

[2021]DLSC10168
																																						<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" >LA
DADEKOTOPON YOUTH ASSOCIATION<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>NII
KPOBI TETTEY TSURU III (SUBST. BY NII OBODAI ADAI IV FOR AND ON BEHALF OF LA
STOOL) 18 &amp; ORS. AND EDMUND JOSEPH OBODAI MENSAH&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME 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">CIVIL
APPEAL NO. J4/20/2021&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:
31ST MARCH, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>MOHAMMED SAHNOON FOR THE
PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>KWESI AUSTIN FOR THE 1ST TO 9TH
AND 11TH TO 20TH
DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS.<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;">

NII KPAKPO
SAMOA ADDO FOR THE 10TH DEFENDANT/APPELLANT/APPILCANT/RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>YEBOAH CJ (PRESIDING), PWAMANG JSC, AMEGATCHER
JSC, OWUSU (MS.) JSC, AMADU JSC<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">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;PWAMANG JSC:-<o:p></o:p>It
is provided under Rule 20 of the Court
of Appeal Rules, 1997 (C.I.19) (as amended by C.I.21 and C.I.25) as
follows;<o:p></o:p>20. Written submission <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(1) An
appellant shall within 21 days of being notified in Form 6 set out in Part I of
the Schedule that the record is ready, or within such time as the Court may
upon terms direct, file with the Registrar a written submission of his case
based on the grounds of appeal set out in the notice of appeal and such other
grounds of appeal as he may file. <o:p></o:p>(2) Where the appellant does not file the
statement of his case in accordance with subrule (1), the Registrar shall
certify the failure to the Court by a certificate as in Form 11A in Part I of
the Schedule and the Court may upon that order the appeal to be struck out.<o:p></o:p>The
defendant/appellant/applicant/respondent (the defendant) filed an appeal in the
Court of Appeal against a decision of the High Court dated 21st
October, 2014. When the record of the appeal was ready he was served with Civil
Form 6 notifying him accordingly. However, he failed to file his written
submissions within 21 days of the service on him of the Form 6 as required by
the rule so the registrar issued a certificate of Non-Compliance under Rule
20(2) and listed the appeal upon a summons before the Court of Appeal for the
court to decide whether to strike it out. About the same time, the defendant
filed a motion under Rule 20(1) for extension of the 21 days for him to file
his written submissions. The registrar listed the summons for non-compliance
and the motion for extension of time before the same panel on the same day. The
summons for non-compliance was called first and adjourned sine die on ground of non-service of an affidavit in opposition on
the plaintiff/respondent/respondent/appellant (the plaintiff). After the summons
was adjourned the application for extension of time was called but the plaintiff’s
counsel objected to the court hearing the application arguing that it has to be
adjourned to abide the decision of the court on the summons for non-compliance.
The court overruled the objection, heard the application and granted defendant
extended time to file his written submissions. Aggrieved by the decision of the
Court of Appeal the plaintiff lodged the instant interlocutory appeal.<o:p></o:p>In
its statement of case the plaintiff contends, that once a Certificate of
Non-Compliance issued pursuant to Rule 20(2) of C.I.19 (as amended) comes to
the attention of the Court of Appeal, the court cannot entertain an application
by the &nbsp;appellant who is in default for
extension of time to file her written submissions. The plaintiff submits that
the summons for Non-Compliance must be heard first and if the court, in
exercise of its discretion decides not to strike out the appeal, then and only
then can the court hear the application for extension of time. But if the court
strikes out the appeal for non-compliance, then the application for extension of
time would be rendered moot. The justification posited by the plaintiff for its
view that priority ought to be given to hearing of the summons for
Non-Compliance is, that hearing the application for extension of time before
the summons for non-compliance would “stultify” the summons and render the
sanction in Rule 20(2) of C.I.19 for non-compliance ineffective. The plaintiff
submits that its preferred order for hearing the two applications will make the
rule to bite and compel appellants to comply with the time limitation for
filing written submissions.<o:p></o:p>While
we appreciate the plaintiff’s submission that courts are required to enforce
sanctions provided for in their rules of procedure in order to engender &nbsp;strict compliance with the rules, it is
equally the policy of the law that it is in the best interest of justice that
disputes that come before the courts, as far as possible, ought not to be
decided on the basis of default by one party to comply with rul</main>