SGT. OFOSU ADDO v. GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS GROUP LTD

GBADEGBE JSC:

In the action out of which this appeal arises, the plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendant for defamation and was awarded damages as well as an order directed at the defendant to publish a retraction of the publication on which the action turned. The defendant claiming to be aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial High Court appealed there from to the Court of Appeal. Pending the determination of the appeal, the defendant applied to the trial Court for an order of stay of execution of the orders of the Court. The application having been refused by the High Court, the defendant filed a repeat application that was authorized under the rules of the Court of Appeal. In its ruling dated 3rd March 2010, the Court of Appeal granted the application for stay of execution of the judgment of the High Court pending the determination of the appeal. The instant proceedings arise as a result of the appeal by the plaintiff from the order of stay of execution that was granted by the Court of Appeal.

In the notice of appeal on which these proceedings are based, the plaintiff raised several grounds of complaint against the delivery of the Court of Appeal. The delivery herein is sequential to the submission to the court by the parties of their respective statements of case. In considering the appeal herein, we propose to examine the grounds in the order in which they were argued in the plaintiff’s statement of case filed on 7th July 2010. This being the position, we commence with the ground that was formulated as follows:

“The court erred in granting an application that was manifestly incompetent.”

The above ground, in our opinion is expressed in vague or general terms contrary to the provisions of rule 6.5 of the Supreme Court rules, CI 16 which is in the following words.

“A ground of appeal which is vague or general in terms or does not disclose a reasonable ground of appeal is not permitted, except the general ground that the judgment is against the weight of the evidence and a ground of appeal or part of it which is not permitted under this rule, may be struck out by the Court on its own motion or on application by the respondent.”

This rule permits the court to strike out offending grounds of appeal but since we allowed the parties to address us on the said offending ground and in order not to deny the parties of the benefit of the submissions made there under, we would take it into account in the consideration of the ap