DARKE IV v. DARKE IX AND ANOTHER

JUDGMENT OF CHARLES CRABBE J.A.

This is an application "praying for an order for the judgment of 30 July 1979 to be declared null and void [or] in the alternative be set aside and for such further or other orders" which in the opinion of this court is, or are, appropriate.

The facts, for the purposes of this application, are really simple. On 30 July 1979, this court delivered a written judgment. It was in respect of an appeal argued on 5, 6 and 7 July 1979. Consequent upon that judgment, read in open court, an order was made that:

"The appeal by the defendants-appellants is allowed. The judgment of the High Court, Ho, dated 11 November 1975, declaring the plaintiffs-respondents as the owner in possession of the land edged in pink or red in colour on the survey plan, exhibit Z is set aside. Instead, there will be judgment in favour of the defendants-appellants allowing the counterclaim for a declaration of title and possession of the land they claim edged green on the plan. As to costs the defendants-appellants are entitled to costs of this appeal fixed at ¢407.52 and also the costs in the court below assessed at ¢350. Costs in the court below if paid, should be refunded."

In his affidavit in support of the application, Togbe Ayim Darke IV, the applicant, stated, inter alia:

"That I am informed by my counsel and verily believe same to be true that a court is bound to give reasons for its decisions and not to make oracular pronouncements. That the court is also bound to reduce its judgment into writing and make same available to the parties to the suit and the whole world. That nine months after the delivery of the judgment, the written judgment incorporating the reasons thereof is not available. That I am advised by counsel and verily believe same to be true that the non-availability defeats the ends of justice and brings the administration of justice into disrepute. That the impression being created amongst my subjects is that, if really written reasons for the judgment were read then it should have been available long ago and that the judgment is being re-written to forestall the points raised in my application for review. . .”

[p.147]

Togbe Gobo Darke IX, the first defendant-respondent, admitted most of the facts stated in the affidavit of the plaintiff-appellant, adding that:

"I am advised and verily believe same to be true that the absence of the reasons for judgment does not detract from the efficacy of the judgment of the court; nor has