HOLLAND WEST AFRICA AND ANOTHER v. PAN AFRICAN TRADING CO. AND ANOTHER

JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.

On 18 December 1975 this court gave judgment (reported sub nom. Pan African Trading Co. v. Holland West Africa [1976] 1 G.L.R. 237) for the plaintiffs against the defendants for ¢55,135.21 with fifteen per cent interest per annum calculated from 12 October 1971.

[p.181]

The defendants have applied for a review of that part of the judgment that awarded interest to the plaintiffs. There are two main grounds for this application and these have been stated in the supporting affidavit in paragraphs (3) and (4) as follows:

"(3) I am advised that this honourable court erred in law in awarding interest.

(4) I am advised by counsel for the first defendants that ever since the judgment in this case it was discovered from a recent decision of the Court of Appeal released in the Yuletide that this court ought not to award interest in the absence of the necessary instrument giving effect to section 98 of the Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372)."

The reason in paragraph (4) of the affidavit shows that this court erred in law in awarding interest because a decision of the Court of Appeal, according to the defendants, does not permit the award of interest. In effect the ground for asking for this review is simply based on an error of law on the part of the court. However, Order 39 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), states that an aggrieved person may apply for review on three main grounds, namely: (a) that he has discovered a new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the judgment was given or the order made, or (b) that there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or (c) that other sufficient reason exists for applying for a review.

The question to be asked is this: Can a review be applied for solely on the ground of error of law? I think not. For in Yanney v. African Veneer Mahogany Exporters Ltd. [1960] G.L.R. 89, C.A. it was held that the fact that a judge made an error of law was not a sufficient reason within the rule for applying for a review.

This point may seem to dispose of the application summarily but I consider the matter at issue to be of great importance to commerce in this country that I have decided to consider the matter of award of interest by the courts. In doing so I take the view that the award of fifteen per cent interest was a mistake or error apparent on the face