Try asking the following...
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
AKAMBA, JSC:
On the 6th of June 2016, we unanimously dismissed the appeal brought by the 1st defendant/appellant/appellant and respondent in this motion against the decision of the Court of Appeal which had affirmed an earlier decision of the High Court (Commercial Division) Accra in favour of the plaintiff/respondent/respondent and applicant herein.
By our decision, we affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal save for a variation. We substituted an award for the payment of the outstanding balance under the undertaking given by the plaintiff/applicant to the 2nd defendant but which monies were paid to other banks. We consequently entered an award for the recovery of the outstanding balance under the undertaking from both (plaintiff) applicant and (1st defendant) respondent jointly.
The Applicant herein filed the present motion on 7th July 2016 barely a month after our decision seeking a clarification ‘to parts of the judgment of this Honourable Court dated June 6, 2016’ citing reliance on Rule 5 of CI 16.
Rule 5 of CI 16 provides that:
“5. Where provision is not expressly made by these Rules regarding the practice and procedure which shall apply to a cause or matter before the Court, the Court shall prescribe the practice and procedure that in the opinion of the Court the justice of the cause or matter requires.”
Reading the ruling of the court in a similar application seeking clarification by this court in the case of NDK Financial Service Ltd v Ahaman Ltd and 2 ors, CM J8/29/2016 on 10th March 2016, I stated that:
“This being the last and final court of the land, in a situation in which the rules of court or any other relevant statute, do not prescribe particular practices or procedure as the justice of a cause or matter may require, it is appropriate to grant the application, provided there is substance in it and regardless of the form in which it has been intituled. This is in consonance with the duty of the courts to do substantial justice on the issue/s before it. A court of justice has a duty to render its decisions with sufficient clarity so as not to leave parties in any doubt/s as to the outcome of its pronouncements. Where doubts are evident or uncertainties obvious from the court’s orders, rulings or judgments, it is appropriate to seek the intervention of the court in appropriate circumstances to clarify the doubts. (See Okofoh Estates Ltd vs Modern Signs Ltd &Anor (1996-97) SCGLR 224, holding 1).”
We would consequently d