THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC AND ORGANIZED CRIME OFFICE v. TWENEBOAH KODUAH
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- KUSI APPIAH, J. A (PRESIDING)
- HONYENUGAH, J.A.
- TORKORNOO, J. A
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Respondent filed applications to freeze, seize, and transfer the Appellant's funds in 2012, and to confiscate the Appellant's assets in 2013. The Appellant's application to set aside the confiscation order was denied, prompting an appeal. However, the appeal was filed 28 days after the ruling, exceeding the 21-day limit for interlocutory appeals outlined in Rule 9 (1) (a) of the Court of Appeal Rules 1997 CI 19. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
TORKORNOO, J. A:
On 15th February 2012, the Respondent in this appeal filed an application for an order confirming the freezing, seizing and transferring of the funds in the accounts of the Appellant with Ecobank, Kejetia Branch following the filing of a Suspicious Transaction Report by the bank. The application was pursuant to Sections 24, 33, 34, and 35 of the Economic and Organised Crime Office Act 2010 Act 804. This order was granted by the High Court on 20th February 2012.
Almost a year later on 17th December 2012, the Respondent filed an application for an order to confiscate and transfer tainted asset/proceeds of crimes pursuant to
Sections 46, 47, 50, 51 and 56 of Act 804. The court ordered on 19th December 2012 that notice of the application be published once. The Motion was repeated and set to be moved on 28th February 2013. On 28th February 2013, the order for confiscation was granted by the high court.
On 23rd January 2014, the appellant per his counsel filed an application to set aside the order of confiscation. This application was refused on 12th February, 2014 and costs of One Thousand Ghana cedis (GH¢1,000.00) awarded against the appellant.
The Appellant filed an appeal against this ruling of 12th February, 2014 on 11th March 2014. The appeal is against the ruling of 19th December 2012 and the order refusing to set it aside on 12th February 2014.
First it must be said that it is strange that the Appellant should direct spears at the order of 19th December, 2012 which ordered the single publication, and leave the order of 28th February, 2013 which confiscated assets based on that single publication. It would seem to be a rather vacuous effort which tries to touch the contaminated egg while leaving the poisoned chicken hatched out of it running free.
Be that as it may, counsel for Respondent in her written submissions has drawn this court’s attention to the filing of the appeal out of time, and argued that it cannot clothe the court with jurisdiction to hear it.
Rule 9 (1) (a) of the Court of Appeal Rules 1997 C I 19 directs that an appeal against an interlocutory decision shall not be brought after the expiration of twenty one days. Although the rules allow the grant of leave for extension of time within which to appeal against a final decision in Rule 9 (1) (b), this is not the case for interlocutory appeals.
Thus an Appellant in an interlocutory appeal has 21 days from the date the ruling is given to appeal and no more. In the pr