2012
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Baffoe-Bonnie JSC, dismissed an appeal arising from litigation against the Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority (GPHA) and another defendant. After the High Court set aside the appellants writ for failure to give one-month pre-suit notice required by section 92(2) of PNDC Law 160, the appellants obtained a brief extension and appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as out of time, ruling the order interlocutory and the extension without jurisdiction, and upheld the validity of the notice provision. In the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the order was final or, alternatively, that time could be extended for interlocutory appeals and that section 92(2) was unconstitutional and required Supreme Court interpretation. Applying Ghanas settled order approach to determine finality, the Court held the order was interlocutory, rejected a punctuation-based argument that Rule 9(1) permits extension for interlocutory appeals, reaffirmed that such appeals must be filed within 21 days without extension, and confirmed the mandatory nature of section 92(2). The appeal was dismissed.
BAFFOE-BONNIE, J.S.C.
The appellants sued the two defendants at the High Court claiming:
a. An amount of Two Hundred and Sixty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Seven US dollars or its equivalent in cedis being actual cost of damage and surveyor's fees as a result of the defendant's negligence and breach of contract;
b. Interest on the sum of Two Hundred and Sixty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Seven US dollars or its equivalent in cedis at the prevailing commercial rate from August 2008 till date of final payment;
c. Damages for negligence and breach of contract by the defendants;
d. Costs including legal fees; and
e. Any other reliefs arising from the pleadings.
The 2nd defendant respondent entered a conditional appearance and applied to have the writ of summons set aside on the grounds that failure to comply with section 92(2) of Ghana Ports and Harbours Authority Act, 1986 (PNDC Law 160) rendered the writ premature and therefore null and void. This submission was upheld by the trial High Court Judge and the writ was dismissed on 14th October 2009. On the 9th of November 2009 the appellant applied ex parte to the High Court, differently constituted, for an extension of time within which to file an appeal against the decision of the High Court dismissing his writ of summons. This application was granted on 12th Nov. 2009 for a period of 3 working days. With time extended the appellants appealed to the Court Of Appeal on the grounds that:
a. the learned trial judge erred in law by striking out the writ of summons and statement of claim and
b. the learned trial judge erred in awarding costs
Before the Court of Appeal the appellant argued that the section 92(2) of PNDC Law 160 which was the basis of the High Court’s decision was unconstitutional as same was inconsistent with the provisions of the 1992 constitution
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the grounds that;
a. the appeal was filed out of time , it being an interlocutory appeal, and that the purported extension of time granted to file same was done without jurisdiction and therefore null and void; and
b. the section 92(2) of PNDC Law 160 is constitutional.
It is against this decision that the appellant has appealed to this court on the following grounds.
1 the learned Court of Appeal Judges erred in holding that the High Court Judge had no jurisdiction to grant the appellants extension of time within which to file notice of appeal. The particulars of error being th