May 25, 2022
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This Supreme Court of Ghana judgment, authored by Pwamang JSC and joined by Yeboah CJ, Owusu (Ms.) JSC, Honyenuga JSC, and Prof. Mensa-Bonsu (Mrs.) JSC, resolves a post-judgment dispute between International Rom Ltd and Vodafone concerning the effect of a prior Supreme Court variation on the High Court’s awards. International Rom had sued for unpaid works and damages, while Fidelity Bank joined asserting facilities extended on Vodafone’s undertakings to pay into a joint account. In 2016, the Supreme Court dismissed Vodafone’s appeal but varied the award, substituting joint liability of International Rom and Vodafone for the 'outstanding balance under the undertaking' to Fidelity. Despite a later clarification identifying three undertakings (exhibits 3, 4, and 10), the parties and lower courts misapplied the variation to preset sums. The Supreme Court now holds the variation applied only to the US$2,280,000 award premised on undertakings, not to 'special damages' or the counterclaim, and dismisses Vodafone’s appeal.
PWAMANG JSC:-
My Lords, the ruling of the High Court that has culminated in this appeal was initially in respect of an application to set aside an amended entry of judgment filed by the plaintiff/appellant/respondent (the plaintiff) after winning its case in the Supreme Court.
However, in the determination of the application, the High Court judge went beyond the scope of the application and determined the outstanding judgment debt owed by the defendant/respondent/appellant (the defendant). The judge took this course because the awards made in the substantive judgment of the High Court dated 15th May, 2013 (which was by a different judge) were varied by the decision of the Supreme Court in the final appeal given on 6th June, 2016. The view was therefore that the new entry of judgment must agree with the judgment as varied by the Supreme Court minus what had been paid. In apparent effort to resolve differences between the parties about how much of the judgment debt remained to be paid, for some payments had been made in the course of the appeals, the judge appointed an accountant as a referee and in his work he took into account compromise payments made by the defendant to Fidelity Bank, 2nd defendants in the case, to defray the judgment liability of the plaintiff on a counterclaim. The referee tendered his report and testified, and from his testimony, he carried out his work on the basis of his understanding of what the judgment debts of the plaintiff and the defendant stood at following the variation of the original judgment by the Supreme Court.
But, what constitutes the judgment debt owed by either party, especially as amended by the Supreme Court judgment, is a matter of law to be determined by the court upon an interpretation of the Supreme Court decision and it ought not to have been left to a referee. Though the determination of how much remained to be paid by the defendant was embarked upon by the judge in good faith, it has unfortunately embarrassed the proceedings in her court and made them difficult to understand. The end result is that we are being called upon by the parties to the appeal herein to enter judgment for amounts in their respective statements of case as if we are determining a substantive appeal which is not the case. Nevertheless, the central question of law emanating from the ruling of the High Court judge dated 24th April, 2018, and of the Court of Appeal dated 21st November, 2019 is, in what manner did the variation by the Su