GH - MORKOR v. KUMA

Akuffo JSC. A brief summary of the background of this application will suffice to place the matter in its proper perspective. Furthermore, in this ruling, we intend to rely upon the record of appeal in. civil appeal No 5/98 to enable us deal effectively with the issues arising herein.

On June 24 1991 the respondent obtained summary judgment in suit number 2075/90 against East Coast Fisheries Ltd and the applicant (the managing director of the company) for the recovery of a trade debt arising from the supply of fish to the company. Subsequent to the summary judgment, the company and the applicant, by a motion filed on 19 July 1991, applied to the High Court for orders staying execution of and setting aside the summary judgment, which application was dismissed on 15 July 1992. In that application, the applicant herein and the first defendant challenged the amount adjudged as owing. Furthermore, the applicant herein, for the first time in the suit, raised the issue of whether or not she was a proper party to the suit. The applicant (not the company) appealed to the Court of Appeal for the summary judgment and the said subsequent ruling to be set aside on the main ground that the [pg 71] appellant was not a proper party to the suit. The Court of Appeal by a majority decision dated 30 May 1996 dismissed the appeal. The applicant, therefore, appealed to this court in civil appeal No 5/98. Before this court could deliver judgment on the appeal, however, the applicant filed the present application. By this motion, the applicant seeks leave of the court to call further evidence in her appeal before the delivery of the court's judgment. The notice of motion indicates that the same was being brought under rules 5, 16, 23(1) (3) and 53 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (CI 16), and the applicant is praying this court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.

Without doubt, the rules of procedure cited by counsel for the applicant, as the bases for the application, are wholly inappropriate for the purpose sought to be achieved. Rule 5 of CI 16 relates to the power of the Supreme Court to prescribe practice and procedures in those instances where CI 16 makes no express provisions therefor. Rule 16 of CI 16 relates to the control of proceedings, during the pendency of an appeal, after the transmission of the record of appeal to this court. Rule 23 of CI 'i 6 governs the general powers of the court in the management of appeals before it and rule 53 of CI 16 falls under t

MORKOR v. KUMA

Areas of Law