Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
November 14, 2014
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
RULING
BENIN, JSC:-
On 24th May 2013 the ordinary bench of this court gave judgment against the plaintiff/appellant/applicant hereinafter called the applicant in favour of the defendant/respondent/respondent hereinafter called the respondent. The applicant sought a review but was out of time, so he applied for extension of time to do so. He was granted leave by this court presided over by a single judge, Akamba JSC. He was granted ten days from 26th June 2013, the date of the order, in which to file the application for review. He filed the application within time on July 5 2013. When the application came up for hearing before the review panel, Counsel for the applicant decided to withdraw it apparently because it was filed in disregard to the rules of practice and procedure in the sense that no reference was made therein to the Judge who had made the order and the date thereof. The court accordingly struck it out as withdrawn.
Thereafter the applicant took some other steps to bring into fruition his desire to have the court’s judgment of 24th May 2013 reviewed, but he failed at each and every attempt made. This is the third bite at the cherry. One wonders whether the applicant does not know what he is doing for the impression is that he is just gambling around the rules in the hope that one will be favourable to him. One should not lose sight of the fact that the principles against vexatious litigation and abuse of process should equally apply to applications to the court especially when the object sought by them is the same, as in this case. Nonetheless in the interest of justice I have decided to consider the application on its merits.
By the present application filed on 29th August 2014, the applicant is asking for two reliefs from this court, viz: (i) for an order to X the application for review filed on 5th July 2013, and (ii) for leave to amend the said application. Counsel’s argument was simply that the application was withdrawn and was not dismissed on merit so they could apply to relist same. On the other hand counsel for the respondent cited rule 79 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I.16) and submitted that the applicant was barred from coming back since the court did not waive the irregularity in the application when it struck it out.
Rule 79 of C.I.16 provides:
Where a party to any proceedings before the court fails to comply with any provision of these Rules or with the terms of any order or direction given or with any rule of practice
AI Generated Summary
This ruling by A. A. Benin, JSC of the Supreme Court of Ghana addresses an application to relist and amend a previously withdrawn review application. After the ordinary bench delivered judgment on 24 May 2013 against the applicant and in favour of the respondent, a single justice (Akamba JSC) granted an extension of ten days on 26 June 2013, and the applicant filed the review application on 5 July 2013. The applicant withdrew the application at hearing due to procedural non-compliance (failure to reference the judge and date of the order), leading the Court to strike it out as withdrawn. In the present application of 29 August 2014, the applicant seeks restoration and amendment; the respondent invoked Rule 79 of C.I.16 to argue a bar to further prosecution. Benin JSC held that an unconditional striking out leaves liberty to return, and under Rule 79 the Court may waive or permit compliance. Recognizing review as an ultimate remedy, the Court restored the application, allowed seven days to amend, and imposed GH a55,000 costs to compensate the respondent.