GH - MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU v. THE ATTORNEY & ORS

RULING

BENIN, JSC:- Ordinarily, this Court does not permit oral applications to be made. However, I permitted Counsel for the 3rd Defendant/judgment/debtor herein to make an oral application that goes to jurisdiction of the Court to entertain application for a claim of interest by a party affected in the process of execution. I allowed the oral application partly because the lead Counsel for the 1st Defendant/judgment/creditor did not disapprove of it and was ready to reply to the arguments. But I must caution that oral application is not the normal practice of this Court and this should be taken as an exception and not as precedent.

Counsel's argument was based on Order 44 rules 12 and 13(4)(5) of the High Court (Civil Procedure Rules) 2004, C. I. 47. He stated that under the said rule 13(5) a party aggrieved by the court's decision has the right to appeal within 14 days. He submitted therefore that the rules of appeal cannot be invoked since there is no right to appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court. Consequently, he submitted that the execution processes should be carried out in the High Court. Counsel for the claimant UT Bank added his voice to these submissions and stressed that in the context of interpleader proceedings the party must have the right to appeal.

In response to these arguments, lead counsel for the 1st Defendant/judgment/creditor argued that the court is exercising its right to enforce its decision which is not inspired by the High Court rules. That the Court derives its jurisdiction from article 129(4) of the Constitution. The original matter derived from the Court's exclusive jurisdiction and the Court decided to enforce its own judgment. Counsel stated further that it is not the rules of court which confer right to appeal. To him, this application is a red-herring.

In the case of Republic v. High Court (Fast Track Division), Accra; Ex parte Anane Agyei Forson (Attorney-General Interested Party) (2013-2014) 1 SCGLR 690, this court decided that it has jurisdiction and power to enforce its own decisions. Following that decision, the court embarked on the process of enforcing the decision made in favour of the 1st Defendant/judgment/creditor. In the course of the enforcement proceedings, the UT Bank acting per its Receivers, brought a claim of interest against some properties attached in execution. The present objection is in regard to the Court's jurisdiction in respect of the interpleader claim which counsel believes wil

RULING

MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU v. THE ATTORNEY & ORS

Areas of Law