2013
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The plaintiff, a retired CEO, sued the defendant for non-payment of pension benefits, leading to a favorable ruling in the plaintiff's favor by the Sekondi High Court. The defendant's appeal was struck out by the Court of Appeal for non-compliance. The Court of Appeal also denied the defendant's application to relist their appeal, considering it tardy and indolent. The defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court, raising whether the appeal was interlocutory or final. The Supreme Court, applying the 'nature of the order' test, held that the Court of Appeal's decision was final. Thus, the defendant's appeal to the Supreme Court was timely. The case was remitted to the Court of Appeal to hear the substantive appeal.
J U D G M E N T
DOTSE JSC:
The issue which calls for determination in this appeal as a preliminary point is whether the appeal lodged by the SSNIT, the Defendant/Appellant/Applicant/Appellant hereafter referred to as the Defendant against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 3rd May, 2011 as it were in favour of the Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent/Respondent hereafter referred to as the Plaintiff is interlocutory or final.
In this respect, I cannot but refer to the majority decision of this Court in the case of Opoku and others v Axes Co. Ltd [2011] I SCGLR 50, holding 2 where the majority Date-Bah, Baffoe-Bonnie and Aryeetey JJSC stated as follows:-
“The common law, over the years, had recognized two alternative tests or divergent views in determining whether an order was final or interlocutory. The first test, called the “nature of the order approach”) Lord Alverstone CJ test), was whether or not the order as made had disposed of the rights of the parties; if it did, it was final; if it did not, it was interlocutory. The second test, the “nature of the application” approach (Lord Esher MR test) was to place emphasis on the nature of the application made to the court, i.e. an order would remain interlocutory so long as a different order made in the same proceedings could have kept the litigation in being. It did not matter whether the order made would dispose of the litigation. The courts in Ghana had been consistent in rejecting the nature of the application approach in favour of the nature of the order approach. Dictum of Lord Denning J LJ in Salter Rex & Co v Ghosh [1971] 2 ALL ER 865 at 866; and Minister of Agriculture, Food and Forestry v Alte Leipzeger [2000] 1 ESC 13; [2000] 4 IR 32 per Hardiman J considered. Attorney-General v Faroe Atlantic Co. Ltd [2005-2006] SCGLR 271 at 288-289; Republic v High Court (Fast Track Division) Accra, Ex parte State Housing Co. Ltd. (No 2) (Koranten-Amoako Interested Party) [2009] SCGLR 185 at 194; and Halle & Sonns SA v Bank of Ghana and Warm Weather Enterprise Ltd., Civil Motion No J7/11/2010, 15 December 2010, unreported followed.”
Fortunately, when this case came up for review, the unanimous decision of the court speaking through its President, my respected brother Atuguba JSC whilst dismissing the application for review on 15th November, 2011 stated quite clearly that it was following the “nature of the order” approach in determining whether the order was final or interlocutory. This is ho