HON. JOE BAIDOE-ANSAH v. GRAPHIC COMMUNICATION GROUP & ORS
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- BARBARA ACKAH-YENSU J.A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The court ruled in favor of the Applicants, allowing them to include Additional Grounds of Appeal in their Notice of Appeal. The court found that the specified grounds (1), (2), and (3) met the requirements of Rule 8(6) since they referred to specific instances of error. The judgment emphasized that Rule 8(6) should not be considered in isolation but in tandem with other relevant sub-rules. The case also referenced a prior ruling in Ofosu-Addo vrs. Graphic Communications Group Ltd to support the decision.
RULING
Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent has raised a legal objection to the Applicants’ application for Leave to Amend Notice of Appeal to include Additional Grounds of Appeal, on the ground that Grounds (1), (2) and (3) infringe Rule 8(6) of C. I.19. The Rule reads thus:
“(6) No ground which is vague or general in terms or which discloses no reasonable ground of appeal shall be permitted, except the general ground that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence; and any ground of appeal or any part of the appeal which is not permitted under this rule may be struck out by the court of its own motion or on application by the respondent”.
Counsel cited the case of Ofosu-Addo vrs. Graphic Communications Group Ltd [2011], 1 SCGLR 355, to buttress his point.
Counsel for the Applicants however contended that Rule 8(6) should not be looked at in isolation, but rather read together with sub rules (4) and (5) of Rule 8.
I have looked at the Judgment which was subsequently filed as an attachment to a Supplementary Affidavit in Support of the Motion, as ordered by the Court. I have also, heard the submissions by Counsel for both Parties, and I am of the opinion that the Applicants have provided sufficient reasons in the said grounds (1), (2), & (3) to satisfy Rule 8(6). Grounds (1), (2) and (3) refer to specific instances of error. Rule 8(6) is not intended for Parties to argue grounds of appeal. The said grounds state specifically why the findings are being challenged. Any further particulars would rather infringe Rule 8(5).
I would have had a problem if Applicants had stated as a ground of appeal that the learned judge erred in making a finding in favour of the Plaintiff simpliciter. In this instance, the stated grounds direct the mind to specific portions of the judgment, and therefore are perfectly within the remit granted by law.
In the circumstances, I shall grant the application and grant leave to Applicants to file the additional Grounds of Appeal.
sgd
Barbara Ackah-Yensu
(JUSTICE OF APPEAL)