IN RE OPPONG (DECD.); MENSAH AND ANOTHER v. BEDIAKO
1991
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ADADE
- WUAKU
- AMUA-SEKYI
- OSEI-HWERE
- EDWARD WIREDU JJ.S.C
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law
1991
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The applicants appealed to the Supreme Court after losing their case in the lower courts but their appeal was automatically struck out for failing to comply with the procedural rule of filing a statement of case within a specified time. The central issue was whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to extend the time for filing or relist the appeal. The court majority ruled that it did not have such jurisdiction under C.I. 13. However, if any procedural gaps existed, Rule 5 allowed the court to prescribe necessary practice but not to rectify non-compliance with Rule 13(2). The case emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and clarified the circumstances under which the Supreme Court could depart from its previous decisions.
JUDGMENT OF ADADE J.S.C.
I have already given my opinion on rule 66 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1970 (C.I. 13) in the ruling I read in Dei IX v. Darke XII [1991] 2 G.L.R. 318, S.C. this morning. I am of the view that this court has jurisdiction under rule 66 of C.I. 13 to extend the time in which an appellant may file a statement of his case pursuant to rule 13(1) of C.I. 13.
I have nothing to add to what I there said.
JUDGMENT OF WUAKU J.S.C.
The applicants herein lost an administration action before the High Court, Kumasi, and again on an appeal before the Court of Appeal. The applicants were granted special leave to appeal to this court. The applicants duly fulfilled the conditions of appeal imposed upon them, and when the appeal record was ready, they were duly informed by the service on them of Form 5.
After the service on them, the applicants ought to have complied with rule 13(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1970 (C.I. 13). This they failed to do, and thus rule 13 (2) automatically became operative whereby the appeal was struck out by operation of law. C.I. 13(1) and (2) provide:
"13.(1) The appellant shall, within three weeks of being notified that the record is ready, file with the Registrar a statement of his case based on the grounds of appeal as set out in the notice of appeal.
(2) Where the appellant does not file the statement of his case in accordance with the provisions of the preceding sub-rule the appeal shall be deemed to have been struck out and the Registrar shall so inform the parties."
By their application the applicants are praying for:
“(i) an order relisting the case to the cause list for hearing notwithstanding the issuance of the notice of non-compliance with rule 13(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1970 (C.I. 13) by the registrar of this honourable court;
(ii) further time, that is to say an extension of time to file their statement of case in this appeal notwithstanding the fact that the time limited for filing of the said statement of case has expired; and
(iii) any other order or orders as to this court may deem fit."
The applicants' reason for being late was that it was only in the last week of February 1991 that they were informed by their solicitors, Agyeman and Associates, that the record of appeal had been ready [p.360] two weeks earlier and that they should go and buy their copy. The applicants allege that they left the record in the chambers of Agyeman and Associates for the attention of Mr J. K. Agyeman