STANLEY KOTEI HAMMOND vs. G. K. AGLEZE AND J. K. NUGBEMADO NII KOJO ABABIO V AND KORLE BEACH RESORT LTD. [2021]DLSC11156

STANLEY KOTEI HAMMOND vs. G. K. AGLEZE AND J. K. NUGBEMADO NII KOJO ABABIO V A... [2021]DLSC11156

Date	2021-12-08
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/13/2021
Citation No.	[2021]DLSC11156

YEBOAH CJ (PRESIDING)

PWAMANG JSC

AMEGATCHER JSC

TORKORNOO (MRS.) JSC

KULENDI JSC

AGYABENG G. AKRASI ESQ. FOR THE 2ND APPLICANT/APPELLANT/ APPELLANT.

NANA KOFI ENNIN NSAFUL ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT.

[2021]DLSC11156
																																						<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" >STANLEY KOTEI HAMMOND<o:p></o:p>(PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>G. K. AGLEZE AND J. K. NUGBEMADO<o:p></o:p>(DEFENDANT)<o:p></o:p>NII KOJO ABABIO V AND KORLE BEACH
RESORT LTD.<o:p></o:p>(2ND APPLICANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT)<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="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:
.0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;line-height:150%;border:none;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CIVIL APPEAL NO. J4/13/2021 &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;DATE:
8TH DECEMBER, 2021<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL<o:p></o:p>AGYABENG
G. AKRASI ESQ. FOR THE 2ND APPLICANT/APPELLANT/<o:p></o:p>APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p>NANA
KOFI ENNIN NSAFUL ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIFF/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;">

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">RESPONDENT.<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:150%;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>My Lords, after a reflective consideration of this
appeal, we took the view that the Court of Appeal came to the right conclusion
in this case when they dismissed the appeal that came before them. Nonetheless,
we noted that one of the reasons for their decision is inconsistent with the
law as we know it and it is our duty as the apex court to correct such errors
of law in order that courts below the Court of Appeal are not misled. The error
is in respect of the statement in their judgment to the effect that a person
who was not a party to proceedings in the court below cannot appeal against the
judgment in the case even if the person is bound by the judgment or her
interest is prejudicially affected by it. <o:p></o:p>In the Court of Appeal, the appellant lodged a
double-barrelled appeal against two decisions given in the same case by the
High Court. The case in the High Court is Suit No. BL. 285/2004 intituled
Stanley Kotei Hammond v G. K. Agbleze &amp; Anor and concerned title to land.
The case went through a full trial and judgment was delivered on 20th
November, 2014. The appellant company herein was not a party in the case but is
directly affected by the judgment as it contained an order for the cancellation
of its registration of the disputed land in the records of the Lands
Commission. Being aggrieved by that judgment, the appellant first applied to
the High Court by motion&nbsp; to have it set
aside but its application was dismissed on 17th June, 2015.The
appellant then filed a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeal and sought
reliefs against both the substantive judgment of 20th November, 2014
and the ruling dismissing its application to set aside the judgment. <o:p></o:p>In their judgment dated 28th May, 2020,
the Court of Appeal held, correctly in our view, that the part of the appeal
against the substantive judgment was woefully out of time and they dismissed
it. The court also rightly disapproved of the procedure of filing one notice of
appeal against the two decisions in the circumstances of this case. The
procedure to adopt where a person is appealing against two decisions by the
same court was discussed in the case of Nana
Ampofo Kyei Baffour &amp; Ors v Justmoh Construction Co. Ltd [2017-2018] 2
SCLRG 488 (Adaare). In that case, the respondent felt aggrieved by two
decisions of the High Court, Kumasi, one refusing to review its decision in
which it set aside its own ruling allowing the respondent to defend the action
and another, a final decision assessing and awarding damages against the
respondent. The respondent filed two separate notices of appeal in the Court of
Appeal, one against each decision. On hearing the appeals, the Court of Appeal
dismissed the appeal against the ruling on the review as having been filed out
of time but allowed the appeal against the assessment of damages. In an appeal
to the Supreme Court, the appellant stated as one of the grounds of the appeal
that; the procedure adopted by the respondent in filing two notices of appeal
was flawed and denied the court jurisdiction to hear both appeals. The view of
the appellant was that the appellant should have filed only one notice of
appeal and that the filing of two notices of appeal was wrong procedure. In
endorsing the procedure adopted in filing two notices of appeal and dismissing
the contention of the appellant, Adinyira, JSC who delivered the unanimous
opinion of the court said as follows at page 510 of the report;<o:p></o:p>“We
will dismiss this ground of appeal in
limine as the 5th Defendant had a right to appeal against both the
interlocutory and final decisions of the High Court.”<o:p></o:p>