ZANYO v. FOFIE

The applicant invokes the jurisdiction of this court to review its decision in the above-mentioned appeal delivered on the 23 June 1992. The respondent on 29 January 1993 filed a notice of intention to rely on a preliminary objection to the application, in which the respondent contended that the application for review was legally incompetent in that the applicant had not complied with the practice direction laid down in the case of Kumnipa II v Ayirebi [1987-88] 1 GLR 256. Consequently the application should be dismissed. The respondent contends further and in the alternative that if we come to the view that the application is “legally competent” then we are invited to disregard the applicant’s statement of case filed on 21 December 1992, as the same was not “warranted by the rules governing review, was filed out of time and in any case does not disclose any exceptional circumstances.” Counsel for the respondent was on strong ground. But in argument before us counsel for the applicant sought to explain away the circumstances, which had led to his non-compliance with the practice direction and applied for his noncompliance to be waived in terms of rule 66 of the rules of the Supreme Court (CI 13). Counsel for the applicant further accepted the blame on himself and referred us to the case of Ojikutu v Odeh (1954) 14 WACA 640. In counsel’s view his sins should not be visited on his client.

The submission of counsel for the respondent on this preliminary objection is not without authority. In Essilfie v Anafo IV [1992] 2 GLR, SC this court was invited to consider the effect of rule 66 of CI 13, which invests this court with power to extend time, on the relevant rules which dealt with the time within which any step in court had to be taken, in this particular case rule 13 of CI 13. This court decided (Amua-Sekyi dissenting) that in appropriate cases the court would extend time for complying with the rules. Each such application had to be considered on its own merits.

It seems to us that the delay allegedly caused by the registrar of this court in furnishing counsel with a copy of the judgment is sufficient ground for extending time. Applications to this court must not be treated lightly and counsel must have the essential material before preparing their case for presentation to us. We will therefore extend time and admit the papers filed by the applicant.

There was however nothing to commend this application for review. The applicant has only sough