DANIEL OFORI vs. ECOBANK GHANA LIMITED SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION GHANA STOCK EXCHANGE [2021]DLSC11143

DANIEL OFORI vs. ECOBANK GHANA LIMITED SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION GHA... [2021]DLSC11143

Date	2021-07-13
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/54/2021
Citation No.	[2021]DLSC11143

YEBOAH CJ (PRESIDING)

DOTSE JSC

BAFFOE-BONNIE JSC

APPAU JSC

PWAMANG JSC

THADDEUS SORY FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.

THADDEUS SORY FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT. ACE ANKOMAH FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPLICANT.

[2021]DLSC11143
																																						<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" >DANIEL OFORI&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,serif;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;color:#00B0F0;mso-ansi-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p>ECOBANK
GHANA LIMITED&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>(1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPLICANT)<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>(4TH DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>GHANA STOCK EXCHANGE<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (5TH DEFENDANT)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[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;">

CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/54/2021&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;&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;DATE: 13TH JULY,
2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>THADDEUS
SORY FOR THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT.<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;">

ACE ANKOMAH FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;CORAM:<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;">

YEBOAH CJ (PRESIDING), DOTSE JSC, BAFFOE-BONNIE
JSC, APPAU JSC, PWAMANG JSC <o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;<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;">

RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>MAJORITY OPINION<o:p></o:p>PWAMANG JSC:-<o:p></o:p>My Lords, on 25th July, 2018 the
Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction as the final appellate court
delivered judgment in Civil Appeal No. J4/11/2016 involving the parties to this
application. By the said decision the court reversed the judgment of the Court
of Appeal delivered on 6th June, 2013 which had confirmed judgment
of the High Court in the case dated 16th September, 2011. The
application before us prays the court to re-open that Civil Appeal No
J4/11/2016 and also to grant leave to the 1st defendant/applicant
herein, who was a respondent in the said appeal, to adduce further evidence
before the court and for the appeal to be re-heard. The applicant contends that
the new evidence it seeks leave to adduce if allowed will cause the court to
vary its decision of 25th July, 2018. The application is being made
on the inherent jurisdiction of the court.<o:p></o:p>As authority for praying the court to fall back on
its inherent jurisdiction to re-open the appeal and receive further evidence
the applicant referred to us the decision of the English House of Lords in R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary
Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2) [1999] 1 All ER 577 and
another by&nbsp; the Supreme Court of the
United Kingdom in R (on the application
of Bancoult (No 2) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
[2016] UKSC 35. At paragraph 20 of its statement of case the applicant
submits as follows;<o:p></o:p>“20. The
United Kingdom Supreme Court has subsequently followed the House in Pinochet.
In R (on the application of Bancoult (No 2) v Secretary of State for Foreign
and Commonwealth Affairs (supra), Lord Mance (with the concurrence of Lord
Neuberger and Lord Clarke) stated emphatically that the failure by a party to
disclose relevant evidence subjects
the other party to an unfair procedure,
and that if significant injustice was
caused with no alternative effective remedy, then the court would exercise
its power to re-open an appeal and permit fresh evidence…..” (emphasis
supplied.)<o:p></o:p>The true position of the law as is affirmed in the
above quoted statement is that a court, including a final court such as this
court, may invoke its inherent jurisdiction where no alternative effective
remedy has been provided for in the rules of procedure of the court. In Imbeah v Ababio [2000] SCGLR 259, the
applicant therein, who was out of time as provided under the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I.16) r7(1)
and (2) &nbsp;to repeat his application
before the Supreme Court for leave to appeal from a decision of the National
House of Chiefs to the Supreme Court, sought to rely on the inherent
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court f</main>