Try asking the following...
This is an appeal from the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal dismissing an appeal of the appellants which they had brought against the ruling of the High Court, Cape Coast. The appellants were sued in the High Court, Cape Coast by the respondents for certain reliefs. Counsel for appellants entered conditional appearance to the writ. He then petitioned the Chief Justice under section 99 of the Courts Act 1971 (Act 372) for a transfer of the case from Cape Coast to Accra giving reasons for the application. The Chief Justice did not accede to that request. Thereafter the respondents in this case (then plaintiffs) filed a statement of claim and the appellants (the defendants) also filed a statement of defence. A few days later the appellants filed a motion under Order 5 r 1 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 1977 (LI 1107) for the transfer of the suit to Accra. The relevant sub-rules under Order 5 r 1 are as follows:
(1) Every writ of summons shall be issued out of the Registry and shall, without prejudice to the provisions of section 99 of the Courts Act 1971 (Act 372) be regulated in accordance with this rule.
(6) All other actions shall be commenced in the Region in which the defendant resides or carries on business.
(8) Where an action is commenced in a Region other than that in which it ought to have been commenced, the action may, notwithstanding, be tried in the Region in which it was commenced unless the court reports to the Chief Justice that in its opinion the action ought to be transferred, and the Chief Justice ordered that it be transferred accordingly, or the defendant raised an objection to the jurisdiction before or at the time he is required to plead in the action.
(Emphasis mine.)
The High Court dismissed the application for transfer holding that the respondents were entitled to sue the appellants in Cape Coast and also that the application in any case was belatedly made under order 5 r 1(8) of LI 1107. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, which also by a majority of 2 to 1 dismissed the appeal, hence the appeal to this court.
The grounds of appeal are that the majority in the Court of Appeal wrongly held that the objection to venue was taken belatedly under Order 5 r 1(8) of LI 1107, in that by so holding they failed to appreciate that the respondents had other available procedure under section 99 of the Courts Act 1971 for objecting to venue. Another ground was that