Practice-Full Court-West African
Court of Appeal-Interpretation
of" pending."
The Court,-following
Fordham v. Clagett,
20
Chd.
637, held that the word"
pending" in section 14(3) of the
West African Court of Appeal
Order-in-Council mLst be given a
wide meaning, and that it
included every matter in which
any proceedinJ;! could by any
possibility be taken.
The following rwing was
delivered :-
HALL, J.
In both these motions Mr. Renner
moved in person.
In Renner v. Thensu and
others (hereinafter called
case A) the only
Defendant-Respondent now
concerned is Kudjo Amuaku. The
motion was to the effect that
the appeal struck out by the
Full Court on 23rd May, 1929, in
Mr. Renner's absence, should be
relisted on tenns. The motion
was filed on 16th April, 1930.
In Renner v. Bampoe and
others (hereinafter called
case B) the only
Defendant-Appellant now
concerned is Ohene Bampoe. The
motion was to the effect that
the judgment and proceedings
herein had in 1929 been set
aside and the appeal reheard,
Mr. Renner not having been
present. The motion was filed on
4th July, 1930.
When these motions came on for
hearing before this Court the
question was raised whether in
view of the fact that in case A
the appeal was struck out by the
Full Court and in case B the
appeal was heard by the Full
Court, the present Court had
jurisdiction to entertain these
appiications. Our decision on
this point was reserved and the
merits were argued.
The Order-in-Council dated 1st
November, 1928, which set up the
West African Court of Appeal
came into force on 1st March,
1930 and therefore except as
regards one or two special
matters the Full Court ceased to
exist. Section 14 (3) of the
said Order-in - Council reads as
follows :-
" All appeals matters and
proceedings whatsoever which
shall be pending at the
commencement of this Order shall
be continued before the Court of
Appeal according to the form and
manner of procedure of the said
Court of Appeal."
The questions then are
(a)
was the appeal in Case A, which
was struck out for
non-appearance of Mr. Renner,
and
(b)
was the appeal in Case B, which
was heard and allowed in Mr.
Renner's absence" pending" on
1st March, 1930 ?
A clear answer to this question
is found in the judgment of
Jessel M.R. in
Fordham v. Clagett·
20
Ch.D. at page
653. The passage runs" Then the
15th section says: 'For the
purpose of winding up and
terminating all matters which at
the commencement of this Act may
be pending in the late Insolvent
Debtors Court, etc., the
following provisions shall have
effect.' What is the meaning of
the word 'pending'? In my
opinion it includes every
insolvency in which any
proceeding can by any
possibility be taken. That I
think is the meaning of the
word' pending' ... A cause is
said to be pending in a Court of
Justice when any proceedings can
be taken in it. That is the
test, If you can take any
proceeding it is pending. 'Pendirig'
does not mean that it has not
been tried. It may have been
tried years ago. In fact in the
days of the old Court of
Chancery, we were familiar with
cases which had been tried fifty
or even one hundred years before
and which were still pending.
Some times, no doubt, they
require a process which we call
reviving, but which the Scotch
call waking up ; but
nevertheless they were pending
suits, and all such causes have
been transferred to the High
Court of Justice under the words
' causes which shall be pending'
in the 22nd section of the
Judicature Act 1873, when the
word 'pending' is used in this
large sense."
It is therefore necessary to
consider Mr. Renner's
applications on the merits.
First as regards Case A. Mr.
Renner filed an affidavit in
support of his application
setting forth reasons for his
inability to attend Court or
instruct counsel (he at the time
being at Sierra Leone). Two
medical certificates are
exhibited to his affidavit one
of which is undated. The other
is dated 16th May, 1929 and
recommends that Mr. Renner
should take a further rest of at
least three months before
resuming any active work.
Neither of the certificates
appears to go the length of Mr.
Renner's suggestions as to his
state of health as set forth in
the affidavit. It would seem
that Mr. Lokko of Counsel was
looking after Mr. Renner's
affairs during his absence from
the Colony, and on the day that
the appeal was struck out Mr.
Lokko informed the Court that he
had no instructions from Mr.
Renner and asked leave to
retire, which he was allowed to
do. It was clearly laid down at
the sitting of the Full Court in
1929, of which I was a member,
that, subject to emergencies,
that would be the last sitting
of that Court and that the next
sitting of an Appeal Court in
the Colony would be that of the
West African Court of Appeal.
That sitting commenced on 1st
May, 1930.
Now Mr. Renner in this case filed
his motion on 16th April, 1930 so
that on the question of time he
cannot be held to be guilty of any
neglect as his motion could not be
heard before the May sessions.
The reason why the motion has not
been dealt with until now is due
to the death of one of the
respondents and the desire to
substitute somebody for him. On
the other hand I am not at all
satisfied that Mr. Renner could
not have instructed Counsel in
May, 1929 if he had wished,
despite the state of his health.
In all the circumstances I think
the proper course is for Mr.
Renner to be allowed to relist his
appeal in Case A provided that
within seven days from date he
pays to Respondents £10 10s. that
is, the costs awarded when the
Appeal was struck out less the
cost of the appeal record (if not
already paid) and also £4 4s. the
costs of this motion. If payment
is not made within the specified
time the order of the Full Court
to stand.
The position as regards Case B is
very different.
The surrounding circumstances are
the same as in Case A but Mr.
Renner did not file his motion
herein until 4th July, 1930. The
May sittings of this Court closed
on 5th July of this year and on
that day the motion came before
the Court when the following note
appears on the record "Motion
adjourned to next Appeal Court
this motion having been made at
the last moment in this Appeal
Court when Court about to close."
It is to my mind absolutely
inexcusable that there should have
been such a delay in filing the
motion and in the circumstances I
am clearly of opinion that the
Motion in Case B must be refused.
The Defendant-Appellant Bampoe who
appeared in person before us must
have the costs of this motion
assessed at £l.
DEANE, c.J. 'I he Gold Coast
Colony.
I
concur.
SA WREY-COOKSON, J.
|