OKOFOH ESTATES LTD v MODERN SIGNS LTD AND ANOTHER

Akuffo JSC delivered the first ruling at the invitation of Aikins JSC. This is an application for an order that:

"The proceedings and the ruling or judgment of the High Court of justice per Essilfie-Bondzie JA sitting in the High Court, dated 1 February 1996 in suit No L 567/95 be brought up to this court for the purpose of being quashed and that the same be quashed and further that this court do order that the said action in the High Court suit No L 567/95 proceed to trial in the normal course."

The grounds for the application are set out in the applicant's notice of motion and as additional grounds in paragraph (4) of the applicant's statement of case. In sum, the applicant is challenging the validity of the judgment on the grounds of breach of the rules of natural justice; lack of jurisdiction; and an apparent error of law on the face of the record. The first respondent filed an affidavit in opposition to the application and, also, filed a notice of preliminary objection contending that the application was not properly before the court on three grounds. The first respondent also filed a statement of case in reply to that filed by the applicant. The second respondent, who is a grantee of the first respondent, entirely relied upon and adopted the affidavits and submissions made on behalf of the first respondent. The application came on for hearing on 18 June 1996 at which arguments for and against the preliminary legal objection were heard and the objection was overruled for the reasons now stated herein.

The first ground for the objection was that, since there is no suit pending in this court with the title "Okohofi Estates Ltd v Modern Signs Ltd" in which an interlocutory application is being made, the title of the application is wrong and should have read "Republic v Additional High Court Judge; Ex parte Modern Signs Ltd." In support of this, counsel for the first respondent referred us to the case of Republic v Owusu-Addo; Ex parte Agyeman, High Court, Kumasi, 24 October 1969, unreported; decided in (1970) CC 10, and to Janet Daniels "Practitioners' Guide to the Effective Use of Ghana Law Reports" (1971) 3 RGL 5. In his counter-argument, counsel for the applicant submitted that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is not predicated [p.318] on the title of the suit nor can non-compliance with practice notes be fatal to any cause or matter. Counsel for the applicant also submitted that, in any event, since the Supreme Court R