GH - TRABOULSI & CO. v. PATERSON ZOCHONIS & CO., LTD.

JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE J.S.C.

This appeal arises from the refusal of Hayfron-Benjamin J. to grant an application by the appellants for an order for an extention of time within which to fulfill the conditions of appeal.

The facts are that on 20 January 1971, judgment was given against the appellants in the District Court, Accra, and on 31 January 1971, the appellants filed notice of intention to appeal to the High Court. The appellants allege here that due to an oversight they were unable to fulfil the conditions of appeal within seven days as required by the rules, and that on 21 May 1971, they applied to the district court for an extension of time to enable them to fulfil these conditions. This application was refused. Realising that the application to the district court was misconceived, the appellants repeated their application for an extension of time before the High Court by filing a notice [p.135] of motion on 21 May 1971. This application eventually came before Hayfron-Benjamin J. who dismissed it in the following words:

"Per court: I do not think the lapse of six months since judgment is reasonable. There is no explanation for this delay. The application for an extension of time is dismissed. Costs to the respondent assessed at N¢20."

Against this ruling of Hayfron-Benjamin J. the appellants have appealed to this court on the following grounds:

"(1) That the learned judge erred in finding that length of time was material to the exercise of his discretion.

(2) The learned judge was in law bound to grant the extension of time."

Arguing ground (1) of the appeal, Miss Ayisi, counsel for the appellants, has submitted that the learned trial judge was wrong in exercising his discretion because he failed to take into consideration other factors apart from lapse of time. He did not appear, she argued, to have considered the balance of hardship in the matter, and that the respondents could be adequately compensated by costs for any inconvenience caused to them. On the second ground Miss Ayisi referred to Order 64, r. 6 of the Supreme [High] Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), and cited Botchway v. Nassar (1946) 12 W.A.C.A. 23 in support of her contention that the defect in the proceedings was a mere technicality, and that the learned judge ought to have granted the application for an extension of time to fulfil the conditions of appeal.

For the respondents Mr. Hammond-Laing argued that the court ought not to interfere with the exerci

JUDGMENT OF AZU CRABBE J.S.C.

This appeal arises from the refusal of Hayfron-Benjamin J. to grant an application by the appellants for an order for an extention of time within which to fulfill the conditions of appeal.

Against this ruling of Hayfron-Benjamin J. the appellants have appealed to this court on the following grounds:

"(1) That the learned judge erred in finding that length of time was material to the exercise of his discretion.

(2) The learned judge was in law bound to grant the extension of time."

For the respondents Mr. Hammond-Laing argued that the court ought not to interfere with the exerci

TRABOULSI & CO. v. PATERSON ZOCHONIS & CO., LTD.

Areas of Law

JUDGMENT