RULING
BENIN JSC:
On 16th January 2012 the Court of Appeal dismissed an application filed and moved by the 1st defendant/appellant/applicant hereinafter called the applicant praying the court to stay execution of judgment delivered by the High Court, Accra, on the sole ground that it was out of time. Nine days later the applicant applied to the Court of Appeal to review its decision. The record shows that it was not until 8th November 2012 that the Court of Appeal delivered its opinion dismissing the application for review. Dissatisfied with this ruling, the applicant appealed to this court by notice dated 15th November 2012. The applicant then filed what they termed repeat application for interlocutory injunction pending appeal. The plaintiffs/respondents/respondents, hereinafter called the respondents, raised a preliminary objection to the application for interlocutory injunction. It is the preliminary objection which is the subject of this ruling.
Three grounds were raised in the notice of preliminary objection. These are:
That this court is not seised with jurisdiction to hear and determine the application for interlocutory injunction.
That this court is not seised with an appeal in this cause and therefore not clothed with jurisdiction to hear the application.
That this court is not seised with jurisdiction to hear a REPEAT MOTION for interlocutory injunction.
The parties filed their statements in respect of the preliminary objection on the court’s directive. Counsel for the respondents argued the second ground to begin with. Counsel’s submission was that in reality the decision of the Court of Appeal which the applicants are appealing against is that of 16th January 2012, and not the Ruling on the Review of 8th November 2012. According to Counsel, time to appeal against the January 16 decision had ran out so the appeal against the Review Ruling was a disingenuous way of circumventing the rules on appeal in respect of time. A review could not be substituted for an appeal, Counsel submitted, citing the Court of Appeal decision in Swaniker v. Adotei Twi II (1966) GLR 151.
For his part, Counsel for the applicant pointed out that the appeal is not against the 16th January decision but that of 8th November 2012. Counsel submitted that the mere fact that there is a good ground upon which a judgment could be set aside on appeal is not itself a ground for granting review.
It seems to me that this ground of objection is untenable for the simple reason
