Try asking the following...
This is a second appeal wherein Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the High Court Accra.
The appellants, then applicants, by a motion in suit No 2067/86 sought to enforce an arbitration award against the respondents. Upon issues joined, the learned judge decided to take evidence on certain parts of the award. In the course of the hearing before the High Court, solicitors for the applicants on 19 March 1987 sought “leave to discontinue their application with liberty to come back.” On 20 March 1987 when the matter came before the High Court, counsel for the appellant announced to the court that:
"We were called upon by the court to lead evidence to establish that at the date shown on our application we had fulfilled all of our obligations under the award. We realised that it is not possible to bring the witnesses and so we feel we would discontinue the matter. We pray for leave."
I have referred to this episode in the suit No 2067/86 because in the subsequent proceedings which have resulted in the present appeal, counsel seems to think not only that it was illegal for the proceedings in suit No 2067/86 to be tendered in evidence, but also in having those proceedings before the learned High Court judge and both suits relating to the same issues, it was improper for the learned High Court judge to have heard the suit which is presently under appeal before us. Appellants’ first complaint before us therefore is that the Court of Appeal erred in holding that is was proper for Lutterodt J to hear both suits.
Counsel for the appellants takes issue with their Lordship in the Court of Appeal when they say that the proceedings and judgement in suit No 2067/86 “had no tendency to becloud the vision of then judge.” I agree with their Lordships in their finding.
Again counsel submits that the case of Quartey v Tackie [1962] 1 GLR 65 and the English case of the R v Sussex JJ, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256 are cases in point and support the appellants’ ground of appeal. Their Lordships in the Court of Appeal here again delivered themselves fully on these authorities and I am in full agreement with them. The case of Quartey v Tackie supra, is also distinguishable from the present appeal. In the Quartey case, supra there was a criminal trial followed by a civil trial. It is trite learning and the law was stated precisely by Ollenu J in holding 1 at page 66 of the report that:
"…Evidence of a previous conviction or acquittal in a criminal