JUDGMENT OF ADADE J.S.C.
Adade J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. Section 10 (7) of the Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372) stipulates that:
“7. The Court of Appeal shall not entertain any appeal unless the appellant has fulfilled all the conditions [of appeal] prescribed by the Rules of Court."
(The emphasis is ours.) The said conditions of appeal require, inter alia, that the appellant shall file a notice of appeal within the prescribed [p.403] time as provided by rule 10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1962 (L.I. 218), and, in addition, fulfil the conditions imposed by the registrar of the trial court at the time of settling the record of appeal, viz:
"(a) that the appellant shall as provided by L.I. 218, r. 12 (4) ‘deposit ... a sum ... to cover the estimated expense of making up and forwarding the record of appeal …’and in addition,
(b) in compliance with L.I. 218, r. 13 deposit such sum . . . or give security therefore by signing a bond . . . for the due prosecution of the appeal and for the payment of any costs which may be ordered to be paid by the appellant."
The registrar normally sets a time limit within which the conditions imposed by him pursuant to rules 12 (4) and 13 are to be fulfilled, usually one month.
The question posed for resolution in this ruling is: what happens if the appellant fails to fulfil the conditions imposed by the registrar under rules 12 (4) and 13 of L.I. 218, either at all or within the correct time?
In this case the Circuit Court, Tarkwa gave judgment against the defendant-appellant on 6 January 1983. She duly filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal on 18 January 1983, and on the same day filed an application at Tarkwa to stay execution of the judgment. The application was dismissed on 18 February 1983. The record of appeal was settled on 6 May 1983, at which the appellant was enjoined to deposit. ¢400 cash to cover the cost of preparing the record as required by rule 12 (4) of L.I. 218 and a further sum of ¢300 or sign a bond in lieu, for the due prosecution of the appeal as required under rule 13 of L.I. 218. The appellant was given one month, effective 6 May 1983, to fulfil these conditions. The appellant's counsel was present at the settlement. Neither the respondent nor his counsel was present. As is permitted by the rules, the appellant repeated her application for stay in the Court of Appeal. It seems that she failed to appear in the said court, which on 13 June 1983 struck it out for want of prosecution.
