Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
May 12, 1976
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.
On 21 October 1975, the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal in respect of this case and made the following order. "We also remit this suit to the High Court and direct that it shall be heard and disposed of not later than two months from the date hereof.
This case has not been disposed of within the time stipulated by the order of Court of Appeal for the simple reason that the civil list of the High Court which is now assigned to one judge is so heavy that sometimes at one sitting as many as between 30 and 60 cases are listed for hearing in the High Court. Cases therefore are adjourned from time to time in the interest of justice. It is humanly impossible for any one judge who has to write down all proceedings to go through such a list in one day. Besides, other cases which require prompt hearing and determination by the High Court are still pending before the court.
Be that as it may, an application was filed on 3 March 1976 by the plaintiffs praying for leave of the court to withdraw a certain sum of money paid into court, and the matter coming on for hearing the defendants' counsel has raised the point that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The reason for this contention is that the order of the Court of Appeal stipulated the time of two months within which the case ought to have been disposed of and the two months have passed and the case has not been disposed of.
It is correct that the two months expired on 20 December 1975 but I have to consider whether the order as to the fixed period of time made by the Court of Appeal is binding on the High Court.
It is necessary to refer to Order 36, r. 19 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), and it states:
"The Judge may, if he think it expedient for the interests of justice, postpone or adjourn a trial for such time, and to such place within the Judicial Division to which he is assigned, and upon such terms, if any, as he shall think fit."
This provision gives a wide discretion to the trial judge in the High Court to adjourn a case before him from time to time in the interest of justice and, since the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954, have the force of [p.326] statute I do not think any court can take away this discretionary power. This discretion in the High Court judge to adjourn a case from time to time is the creation of legislation and the order of the Court of Appeal that the High Court should hear and dispose of the c
AI Generated Summary
EDUSEI J. of the High Court addressed a jurisdictional objection arising after the Court of Appeal had, on 21 October 1975, allowed an appeal and remitted the suit with a directive that the High Court dispose of it within two months. Owing to the exceptionally heavy civil list assigned to a single judge, the case was not disposed of by 20 December 1975. On 3 March 1976, the plaintiffs applied to withdraw monies paid into court; the defendants argued the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the appellate time limit had expired. EDUSEI J. examined Order 36, r. 19 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), which confers wide discretion on trial judges to adjourn proceedings as the interests of justice require. He concluded that the Court of Appeal’s fixed-time directive fettered that statutory discretion and, having been made per incuriam, could not bind the High Court. The objection to jurisdiction was dismissed.