HALLE AND SONNS S. A v. BANK OF GHANA & ANOR
December 15, 2010
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- AKUFFO J.S.C.(PRESIDING)
- BROBBEY,
- DR. DATE-BAH,
- ADINYIRA,
- B. BONNIE, A
- RYEETEY
- A. BAMFO, JJ.S.C
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
December 15, 2010
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, issuing an opinion of the Court, dismissed an application for review that challenged an earlier decision relating to extension of time in the appeal process from a summary judgment of the High Court (Kusi–Apau J.). After granting an unopposed extension of time to proceed, the Applicant contended that the High Court’s summary judgment was interlocutory and that, under the Court of Appeal Rules (Rule 9), time could not be extended beyond the 21-day limit. The Applicant cited authorities including a “farce Atlantic” case (per Twum JSC), Koranteng v Amoako, and Atta Kwadwo v Badu. The Respondent argued the High Court finally disposed of all claims, supported by entry of judgment and execution via a writ of fi. fa. Adopting Ghana’s test for finality—whether orders dispose of the dispute—the Court held the judgment was final. The review failed, and costs of GH¢3,000 were awarded to the Respondent.
BY COURT
The application for extension of time is granted taking into account the fact that the Respondent is not opposing the same. Counsel may therefore proceed.
Counsel for the Applicant moves application for Review in other pleadings filed.
Submits that the High Court’s summary judgment was an interlocutory decision not final and therefore there was no jurisdiction under the Court of Appeal Rules (R. 9) to grant extension of time after the 21 days expired.
Submits the judgment didn’t determine the final rights of the parties. When summary judgment is set aside trial on the merits was ordered. Therefore submits as interlocutory judgment, the time for filing the appeal could not be extended. Refers to farce Atlantic case, opinion per Twum JSC and says it was aluter.
Submits that when a matter is not heard on the merits, it can only be interlocutory. Refers to case of Koranteng vrs; Amoako as in support also refers to Atta Kwadwo vrs; Badu.
Counsel for Respondent counters that the claim that the matter was not disposed of finally in the High Court’s Summary Judgment is false. All the issues were finally dealt with. Judgment after trial & fifa ever filed thereafter nothing further was left for adjudication. Koranteng vrs: Amoako was firmly in tune with Ghanaian case law that whether the decision was final or not depended on the nature of the order made.
OPINION BY COURT;
There is no doubt in the mind of the Court that the judgment of Kusi – Apou J. though summary, was final in nature. It is not whether or not a judgment, if overturned on appeal would be sent back to the trial court for trial on the merits that determines the question of its finality. Rather, in Ghana, the crystallised position is that the determining factor is whether or not the court’s orders, by nature, disposed of the disputed issues between the parties. In this case the High Court dealt with all the claims and made orders thereon, even including the question of interest, thereby enabling the successful party to properly file entry of judgment and even commence execution by issuing a writ of fifa.
Consequently this court in arriving at its decision committed no error whatsoever, and the application herein, for review, fails.
COSTS.
Costs in an amount of GH¢3,000.00 are hereby ordered to be paid to the Respondent by the Applicant.
[SGD] S. O. AKUFFO [MS]
[JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT]
[SGD] S. A. BROBBEY.
[JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT]
[SGD] DR. S. K. DATE-BAH