ASHANTI GOLDFIELDS COMPANY LTD (NOW ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI GHANA LTD) v. AFRICORE GHANA LTD & WESTCHESTER RESOURCES LTD
2013
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
2013
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
AI Generated Summary
The applicant sought to maintain investment funds and halt enforcement of a judgment pending an appeal's final determination. The Supreme Court addressed its jurisdiction, emphasizing the necessity of having the record of appeal transmitted to it before entertaining the application, per Rule 16 of CI 16. Referencing various previous rulings and constitutional provisions, the Court found no jurisdiction and struck out the application.
RULING
DR. DATE-BAH JSC:
The defendant/appellant/applicant has brought a motion on notice for directions from this Court seeking the following orders: “(i) that the sum of US $ 4,000,000 paid into court for investment pursuant to the order of the Court of Appeal dated 24 October 2011 remain in investment pending the final determination of the appeal herein; (ii) that each Plaintiff continue to hold the sum of US$1,000,000 paid by the Defendant pursuant to the said order dated 24 October 2011; (iii) that pending the final determination of the appeal, the balance of the judgment debt be not enforced by the Plaintiffs and other orders as to this Honourable Court it may seem fit.”
The jurisdictional basis for this application is not expressly stated, except that the applicant claims to be invoking “the ample powers” of this Court. This is where the problem is. This Court does not have indeterminate and limitless power to straddle the judicial system dispensing orders right, left and centre from its ample powers. Its powers are derived from the Constitution, statute and practice (including settled rules as to inherent power). Counsel, therefore, owes an obligation to identify which of this Court’s powers he is relying on.
Counsel for the applicant has admitted that this motion is not a repeat application made under rule 20 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (CI 16). That admission implies that he is skating on thin ice. The respondent has challenged the jurisdiction of this court on the ground that, since the record of appeal in this case has not yet been prepared and transmitted to the Supreme Court, it is not seised with jurisdiction to hear the applicant’s motion for directions.
This jurisdictional issue deserves to be addressed before any other issues in this case. Rule 16 of CI 16 provides as follows:
“16. (1) After the transmission of the record of appeal from the court below to the Court, the Court shall be seized of the appeal and any application relating to the appeal shall subsequently be made to the Court.
(2) Any application filed in the court below after the transmission of the record of appeal shall be transmitted to the Court.”
On the face of this provision, before the transmission of the record of appeal to the Supreme Court, it does not have jurisdiction to deal with interlocutory matters relating to a particular appeal, unless an application can be grounded on any of its other bases of jurisdiction, such as its supervisory jurisdiction.