RAOUL ABOU-CHEDID v. GOLD COAST SECURITIES LTD
February 14, 2017
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- M.M AGYEMANG (MRS.) JA – SITTING AS A SINGLE JUDGE
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
February 14, 2017
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
After the Court of Appeal had entered judgment against the defendant/appellant, the appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court on 12 July 2016. The appellant later moved the Court of Appeal to amend the notice because the solicitors signature had been made in the name of the firm Dr. Seth Twum and Associates rather than the licensed natural person Dr. Seth Twum. The respondent opposed, arguing there was no appeal due to unfulfilled conditions under Rule 14 of CI 16, that multiple applications amounted to abuse, and that a firms signature was invalid under the Legal Profession Act. Justice Mabel M. Agyemang asked counsel to address jurisdiction and concluded that, while CI 19 gives general powers to the Court of Appeal, applications that cure fundamental defects in a notice of appeal are jurisdictional matters governed by CI 16 and reserved to the Supreme Court. The application was dismissed as incompetent.
On the 11th of January 2017, the defendant/appellant/applicant (hereafter referred to as the applicant) filed a notice of motion for leave to amend a notice of appeal filed on 12th July 2016 at the Registry of the Appeal Court.
The application was supported by an eight-paragraph affidavit sworn to by one Audrey Twum, a partner of Dr. Seth Twum and Associates. She deposed to the following matters:
That this court gave judgment in the instant matter against the applicant and that the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision by filing a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court on the 12th of July 2016. The said notice of appeal she averred, had inadvertently been signed in the name of Dr. Seth Twum and Associates as solicitor, instead of Dr. Seth Twum.
The application was thus brought to effect a correction of the name appearing under the solicitor’s signature.
The plaintiff/respondent/respondent (the respondent) in a thirty-one paragraph affidavit opposed the instant application upon the following grounds: first, that there was no appeal before the Supreme Court as the applicant had failed as an appellant to satisfy the conditions of appeal in accordance with Rule 14 of CI 16; second, that there was yet undetermined, the applicant’s application before the Supreme Court for extension of time within which to appeal - that the filing of a multiplicity of applications amounted to an abuse of the court’s process; third, that this court has in Nii Lante Mills v. Mildred Ama Woode H3/563/2015 dated 20th October 2015 (unreported), held that a legal process such as a notice of appeal must be signed by a solicitor: a natural person licensed to practise law, and not a firm of lawyers such as the applicant had done in its notice of appeal.
At the hearing of the motion, learned counsel for the respondent raised an issue regarding whether the court can permit an amendment under CI 19 a subsidiary legislation, to cure a defect under substantive law: the Legal Profession Act, Act 32. The court ordered the parties to address it on the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal to deal with the instant application.
I have read the submissions of both counsel and I am persuaded that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the instant application. I say so for the reasons following:
First of all, I must say that although it was deposed in the affidavit in opposition that there was pending at the Supreme Court, the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal,