2018
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The application for review by the Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents/Applicants was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The court found no merit in the grounds presented and upheld the decision of the ordinary bench.
DOTSE, JSC:-
This is a Ruling premised upon an application at the instance of the Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents/Applicants, hereafter referred to as the Applicants praying for a review of the unanimous judgment of the ordinary bench of this Court delivered on the 21st day of June, 2017 which allowed an appeal filed by the 1st Defendants/Appellants/Appellants/Respondents hereafter referred to as the Respondents.
The application for review was supported by a 52 paragraphed affidavit, sworn to by Mr. Kwame Pianim, who described himself as the legal representative of the Applicants herein.
The Respondents herein vehemently opposed this application for review and in this respect a forty paragraphed affidavit in opposition was sworn to by Robertson Kpatsa Esq., who described himself as Head of Legal Department of the Respondent Bank.
GROUNDS OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION
This application for review has been brought on the following grounds:
i. The Judgment of the ordinary bench of the Supreme Court delivered on 21st June, 2017 was given per incuriam relevant case law and statute law.
ii. The ordinary bench of the Supreme Court misapplied the facts and the ratio decidendi in the case of Naos Holdings v Ghana Commercial Bank [2005-2006] SCGLR 407 and wrongfully declined to exercise their power to amend the Applicant’s writ, thereby occasioning a gross miscarriage of justice; and
iii. The demands of justice make the exercise of the court’s review jurisdiction extremely necessary to avoid irremediable harm to the Applicant.
ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL
Even though learned counsel for the parties have all relied on their affidavits and statements of case filed, they were all given some time to expatiate on these processes and grounds by oral submissions in court as follows:-
BY COUNSEL FOR APPLICANTS
Learned counsel for the Applicants, Nene Amegatcher in his submission argued as follows:-
1. That, the ordinary bench of this Court in it’s judgment held that the Applicant, having failed to name the foreign beneficiaries and their resident addresses on behalf of whom the action had been mounted were in breach of Order 2, r. 4 (2) of the High Court, (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) and therefore lacked capacity to even commence the action.
Learned counsel however argued that, under Order 4 r 13 of C. I. 47 (already referred to supra), the Applicants were entitled to sue as “a trustee” without the need to join the beneficiaries of the trust or estate and