PHC MOTORS v. PILLBOX CHEMIST _ MS. SEDINA TAMAKLOE

ARYEETEY, J. A.

A brief background to this application for stay of proceedings pending appeal is as follows: On 12th June, 2002 the plaintiffs/respondents issued a Writ of Summons in the circuit court, Accra for a liquidated sum of ¢10,295,000.00. At the time of the issue of the Writ of Summons the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was limited by section 41(1) (a) (i) of Courts Act, 1963, (Act 459) to ¢10,000,000.00. On 30th April 2003 while hearing of the case was still pending the defendants/applicants filed an application before the circuit court to strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction. The Circuit court dismissed the application and ruled that it had jurisdiction to entertain the action on the basis that by their pleading and their conduct the defendants/applicants had agreed that the circuit court should assume jurisdiction as required by section 41(3) of Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459). That subsection reads: “Where the amount claimed or the value of any land or property exceeds the amount or value specified in subsection (1) of this section the Circuit Court shall, not withstanding that section, proceed to hear the case if the parties agree it should do so”. Also, the circuit court’s other reason for assuming jurisdiction in the matter was that at the time the plaintiff’s witness testified in court on 1st April 2003 its jurisdiction had been enhanced from ¢10,000,000 to ¢100,000,000. The applicant appealed against the ruling of the circuit court and applied to this court for stay of proceedings in respect of the substantive suit before that court. The application is brought under rule 27A of Court of Appeal Rules, 1977 (C.I. 19) as amended by Court of Appeal (Amendment) Rules, 1998 (C.I. 21) (l) which reads: “The Court may in any interlocutory appeal, civil or criminal before it, grant stay of proceedings pending the determination of the interlocutory appeal subject to such terms as the Court considers fit.”

As pointed out by the submission of learned counsel for the applicants, at the time the writ was issued, in terms of section 41 (1) (a) (i) of the Court’s Act, the circuit court had no jurisdiction to hear the case since the amount claimed by the respondents exceeded the jurisdiction of the circuit court and the applicants did not agree to the hearing of the case by that court as required by section 41(3) of Act 459. The two main reasons which the circuit court gave for its ruling dismissing the motion to strike out the writ for want of jur