ERNESTINA BOATENG v. PHYLLIS SERWAH & ORS
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- AGYEMANG (MRS.) JA (SINGLE JUSTICE)
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Plaintiff's initial victory in the High Court was overturned by the Court of Appeal. When the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, the defendants challenged the appeals validity due to a lack of solicitor details. The court upheld the plaintiff's preliminary objection about the competency of the Court of Appeal and a single Justice to hear the matter, and thus dismissed the defendants' application to strike out the notice of appeal.
RULING
AGYEMANG JA:
On the 30th of July 2012, the High Court Human Rights Division entered judgment for the plaintiff/respondent/applicant (hereafter referred to as the plaintiff) in a suit brought against the defendants/appellants/respondents (hereafter referred to as the defendants). The latter brought an appeal against the said decision before this court. On the 4th of February 2016, this court delivered judgment in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the said judgment filed a notice of appeal per solicitor. On the face of the notice of appeal, the firm name Oseawuo Chambers appears under a signature. The name of the solicitor does not appear, nor is his/her licence number indicated.
The defendants per solicitor filed a notice of motion on the 11th of May 2016, praying for an order striking out the appeal for non-disclosure of the name and number of the appellant. It was the contention of the defendants as applicants that the notice of appeal signed by a firm of solicitors Oseawuo Chambers and not a practising lawyer was incompetent.
The plaintiff filed an affidavit in opposition by which she denied the allegation of incompetence.
Before the application could be heard, learned counsel for the plaintiff raised a preliminary objection to the application on two grounds: the competency of a single Justice of this court to hear the instant application, and the competency of the Court of Appeal to deal with the application.
On the invitation of the court, the parties have filed written submissions.
Having read the written submissions of both parties, it is my view that the preliminary objection raised by the applicant has merit.
I say this having regard to both grounds of objection, being (1) the challenge of the competency of a single justice of this court to hear and determine the instant application and, (2) the competency of the Court of Appeal to deal with this matter which is before the Supreme Court.
The jurisdiction of a single Justice of this court is contained in Article 138 of the 1992 Constitution which reads: “A single Justice of the Court of Appeal may exercise a power vested in the Court of Appeal not involving the decision of a cause or matter before the Court of Appeal…”
Learned counsel rightly set out three incidents form the jurisdiction thus set out being: the Single Justice
(1) can only exercise the jurisdiction that is vested on the Court of Appeal;
(2) the appeal must be pending before the Court of Appeal;