Two questions were to be determined in this application: the first is whether this application has been made within time and the second is whether it is necessary to obtain special leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a ruling of the High Court in an interlocutory matter.
In Aryeetey v. Smith [1962] 1 G.L.R. 114 Ollennu J. (as he then was), held that the right to appeal accrues on the day of the final judgment or order against which it is sought to appeal; and that in cases where appeal lies by special leave only, the application for special leave to appeal ought to be brought within fourteen days of the date of the judgment or order.
He said at page 115 that where an appeal lies by special leave only, the would-be appellant loses his right to apply for special leave to appeal if he fails to file an application for special leave to appeal within fourteen days of the judgment or order.
This application is for special leave to appeal against an order made by this court given on 7 June 1983. To the extent therefore that special leave is necessary to launch the appeal, the application ought to have been brought on or before 21 June 1983. The application was filed on 4 July 1983, which is fourteen days out of time. The would-be appellant therefore lost his right to apply for special leave to appeal on 21 June 1983. I am called upon to determine also whether it is necessary to obtain special leave to appeal against a ruling in an interlocutory matter.
[p.1144]
In Bank of Ghana v. Labone Weavers Enterprises Ltd. [1971] 1 G.L.R. 251 the Court of Appeal held that it was unnecessary to obtain special leave to appeal against an interlocutory order of the High Court. They thus dissented from the decision of the same Court of Appeal in Republic v. Minister of the Interior; Ex parte Lynes, 22 July 1970, unreported.
The position taken by the Court of Appeal in the Bank of Ghana case (supra) in 1971 has not been affected by subsequent legislation. I hold therefore that this application is misconceived and is brought without jurisdiction. The application therefore is not properly before me, and it is accordingly dismissed with costs of ¢250 to the respondents.
DECISION
Application dismissed.
M.C.N.N.
