|
REASONS FOR RULING
OMARI-SASU, J.A.
On February 27, 2004
the application by the Plaintiffs-Respondents-Respon-
dents-Applicants for an order to strike out and dismiss
the notice of Appeal filed by the
Defendants-Appellants-Appellants-Respondents on December
17th 2003 was unanimously granted as prayed but the
reasons for the ruling were deferred till today, They
are now given hereunder.
The said Notice of
Appeal of the Respondents Bank was filed pursuant to a
Ruling on review by this court dated November 27, 2003
Two grounds of appeal
were filed by the Respondents. These are:—
(3A)" The Learned
Justices of the Court of Appeal erred when they held
that the
" first time "internal
mechanism " was raised.
" Was in ground (b) of
the grounds of appeal filed on behalf of the bank on
29th
" December, 2000,
against the decision of the High Court, Accra dated 20th
" December, 2000 in the
face of documentary evidence to the contrary in the
appeal record"
Our comment on this
ground is that a through search through all the
processes filed by the litigants herein does not support
the contention of the Respondents Bank. The Applicants
filed a supplementary affidavit on January 19, 2004 in
which they exhibited the statement of claim, statement
of Defence and summons for Directions filed in the court
below and nowhere in the Defence of the Respondents Bank
did they plead that the Bank had any "Internal
mechanisms" which regulated conditions governing the
retirement of their employees.
ORDER 19 RULE 4 OF THE
HIGH COURT [CIVIL PROCEDURE] THURES 1954 [LN.140A]
provides [inter alia]
"Every pleading shall
contain, and contain only a statement in a summary form
of the "maternal facts (emphasis is ours) on which the
party pleading relies for his claim or " defence as the
case me be ... "
An examination of the
statement of Defence of the Respondents Bank (as
exhibited) shows that nowhere in their pleadings did
they plead the "internal mechanism" of the Bank as
alleged.
The Respondents Bank
submitted to judgment in respect of the Applicants
Relief 1 on February 27, 1999 before the High Court and
the said judgment was actually entered by the Court of
Appeal on June, 24, 2002. It is our considered view
therefore that in-as much-as the Respondent-Bank failed
to plead the said "internal mechanism" in their
pleadings, they did not only breach Order 19 Rule 4
(supra) but they also did not qualify to use the said
"internal mechanism" as part of their case to merit
consideration. This court by its review ruling given by
our brethren Brobbey. JSC; Twumasi and Akoto-Bamfo, JJ.A
have amply discussed this issue of "internal mechanism
in their unanimous ruling of November 27, 2003, We share
their view that the so called "internal mechanism" issue
is an after-thought and a side wind which must not be
allowed to detract from the submission to judgment
voluntarily made by the Respondents-Bank. Our Supreme
Court case of GWIRA vrs. STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
[1991] 1 GLR.398 precludes the Respondents-Bank from
raising the issue of "internal mechanism" after they had
submitted to judgment.
The second and last
ground of Appeal of the Respondents Bank attacks the
review carried out by this court in the following words.
"Since the Plaintiffs-Respondents-Applicants
"delayed for a period
of nine months they needed special leave of the court
before they could "bring an application from review".
RULE 34 OF C.I. 19 The
Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 which governs reviews by the
Court of Appeal states: —
The court shall not
review any judgment after it has been delivered unless
it is satisfied "that the circumstances of the case are
exceptional and that in the interest of Justice there
"should be a review".
Our comment on Rule 34
(supra) is that only Two requirements must be met here
by an applicant, These are:—
(a) exceptional
circumstances of the case and
(b) the doing of
justice to the parties in a case.
There is no time limit
set as a bar to the bringing of an application for
review in the Court of Appeal. The foregoing reasons
clearly show that the grounds of appeal filed by the
Respondents Bank are unmeritorious. They disclose no
reasonable grounds of appeal and they explain why we
struck out the grounds and the notice of appeal. The
Plaintiff-Respondent-Applicants are entitle to costs in
this application.
K. OMARI-SASU
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
ANIM J.A
I agree.
S. Y. ANIM
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
G. KUSI-APPOUH, J
I also agree.
G. KUSI-APPOUH
HIGH COURT JUDGE
Dr. Ekow Daniels: prays
for ¢50 Million costs. Says the Respondents Bank have
not only been inconveniencing us. They have created
great embarrassment for the plaintiffs. They are aware
that once a party submits to judgment in a civil case
there is nothing he can add to or take away from the
submission to judgment yet the Respondents-Bank have
resorted to making all manner of unmeritorious
applications.
NOVOR: The statement
from the other side is not entirely correct. For losing
the present application, we offer them ¢10 million
Costs.
BY COURT:—The
Respondents Bank, are to pay ¢30 million costs to the
applicants.
Ekow Daniels: (with him
Ekow Daniels Jnr.) for the Applicants.
Novor fear the
Respondents-Bank. |
