OKOFOH ESTATES LTD v MODERN SIGNS LTD AND ANOTHER
July 23, 1996
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- AIKINS
- EDWARD WIREDU
- CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN
- AKUFFO
- ATUGUBA JJSC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Evidence Law
- Constitutional Law
July 23, 1996
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In Okofuh Estates Ltd’s dispute over land in North-East Adabraka, the High Court summarily dismissed the company’s suit for non-disclosure of cause of action and entered judgment for Modern Signs Ltd and Total (Ghana) Ltd, relying on their registered title and land certificate under the Land Title Registration Law as indefeasible. Okofuh Estates applied to the Supreme Court for certiorari to quash the High Court’s ruling. The Supreme Court unanimously overruled preliminary objections to the application’s title and alleged procedural non-compliance, holding that substantial justice prevails over technicalities. On the merits, the Court found the motion below was under Order 25, r 4 and thus confined to the face of the pleadings; the High Court erred by proceeding under inherent jurisdiction, admitting affidavits and exhibits, and by prejudging detailed fraud allegations without oral evidence. The Supreme Court held these were patent errors of law and granted certiorari, setting aside the ruling and remitting the case for trial in the normal course.
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