JOSEPH BINEY v. KINGSLEY AMANKWAH & OTHERS
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- AGYEMANG (MRS) J.A
Areas of Law
- Appellate Procedure
- Supreme Court Jurisdiction
2016
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The application to amend the notice of appeal was initially objected to by opposing counsel on jurisdictional grounds. However, it was determined that the application was properly brought before the current court, not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only gains jurisdiction after the transmission of the record of appeal. The application for amendment was ultimately granted without further objection.
RULING
The application to amend the notice of appeal was objected to by opposing counsel on the ground that the application had been made at the wrong forum. In her submission, Rule 6(7) of the Supreme Court Rules C.I. 16 mandates the application to be brought before the Supreme Court.
Rule 6(7) Reads:
“Not withstanding Sub Rule (1) to (6) of this rule the court (a) may grant an appellant leave to amend the ground of appeal upon such terms as the court may think it; and (b) shall not, in deciding the appeal, confine itself to the grounds set forth by the appellant or be precluded for resting it’s decision on a ground not set forth by the appellant”.
It is therefore clear that Rule 6(7) applies only when the appeal is entered at the Supreme Court by the transmission on the record from the Registry of this Court to the Registry of the Supreme Court and that court becomes seised with jurisdiction.
Nor is Rule 7 canvassed by the learned counsel of the appellant/applicant, the applicable Rule in this application for Rule 7 deals with an application for leave to bring an appeal.
That the Supreme Court, like this court becomes seised with jurisdiction over an appeal only when the appeal is entered by the transmission of the record of appeal to its Registry has been pronounced upon by the Supreme Court: Per Dr. Date-Bah SSC in Civil Motion No.: J8/29/2013 of 27th/3/13 (unreported), “On the face of this provision, before the transmission of the record of appeal to the Supreme Court, it does not have jurisdiction to deal with interlocutory matters relating to a particular appeal, unless an application can be granted on any of its other bases of jurisdiction such as its supervisory jurisdiction.”
The right to bringing interlocutory appeals such as repeat applications for leave to appeal, stay of execution etc, are specifically provided for in the Supreme Court Rules C.I. 16. Every other interlocutory application not specifically placed with the provision of the Supreme Court by the Rules, is outside its jurisdiction.
In the circumstance, the proper forum for bringing the instant application is this court and the application has been properly brought.
In view of opposing counsel’s indication that she does not object to the application for amendment sought, I will go ahead to grant the amendment sought in terms of the notice of motion filed on 6/4/16.
SGD
M. M. AGYEMANG
(JUSTICE OF THE APPEAL)