|
__
JUDGMENT
WOOD, JA.:
I agree with my learned
brother that the appeal should succeed. The Respondent
endorsed his writ for a number of reliefs including "an
order for plaintiff's reinstatement or in lien ¢20
million compensation to be paid to the plaintiff for his
wrongful dismissal".
The argument advanced
in support of the additional ground (1) is that in so
far as the amount claimed as compensation exceeded the
statutory limit of ¢10m as provided for under S.41 of
the Courts Act 1993, [Act 459], the Circuit Court which
tried the action lacked jurisdiction. The corrolary of
this argument was that the judgment was a nullity and
must be vacated.
Respondent counsel has
on the other hand given four main reasons why this
ground of appeal must fail. First, it was contented that
the ¢20m claim was merely an ancillary relief. But quite
clearly, the statutory limit of ¢10m applies to all
personal actions arising under tort or contract or
actions for the recovery of liquidated sums. The act
does not stipulate either expressly or by necessary
implication that ancillary reliefs are nevertheless
excluded, even though the amount claimed in respect of
such ancillary relief exceeds the statutory limit. It is
indeed inconceivable that any such exemptions would be
created. In any case the relief as endorsed is not an
ancillary or secondary relief. It is alternate to the
order for reinstatement.
The second argument is
that both parties as well as the trial judge treated
this claim as one for general damages. Allied to this
is, the third contention that in any case, the
compensation awarded at the conclusion of the trial,
fell far below the limit of the court's jurisdiction.
These arguments, to my mind are untenable. It is
important that our courts keep within the limits of
their jurisdiction. Indeed, lack of jurisdiction is one
of the most serious charges that can be leveled against
any court or tribunal. It is fundamental and questions
the authority of that court or tribunal to adjudicate on
the matters concerned, in this instant case, the claim
by the respondent that he is entitled to ¢20m by way of
compensation for the wrong suffered. A plain reading of
the S.14 of Act 459, shows that what determines the
circuit court's jurisdiction is not the quantum of an
award in any given case, but rather the amount claimed
as endorsed on the writ. Thus, even where the question
of jurisdiction is raised for the first time on appeal,
the test remains the same. It is not the quantum of
damages eventually awarded, by the court but the amount
claimed in the action in contract, tort or for the
recovery of the liquidated sum. Where the amount so
claimed is in excess of ¢10m, the court lacked
jurisdiction in the first place, notwithstanding the
fact that it awarded a lesser sum. The courts
jurisdiction having been clearly subscribed by statute
the least the court could have done for the parties was
to have raised it so that with their express consent and
properly recorded in the proceedings, the court could
have proceeded to determine the claim. As things stand
now the court erred in assuming jurisdiction as far as
the relief for compensation is concerned.
The fourth and perhaps
the more serious submission is that the appellant
counsel never considered the jurisdictional issue else
he would have raised it at the earliest opportunity, in
the court below. I do agree that the interest of parties
are better served when jurisdictional issues are raised
and dealt with one way or the other, at the earliest
opportunity.
The general rule is
that points of law relied on in appeal hearings, must be
those raised at the trial and which were wrongfully
decided upon. Thus, an appellant ought not to be heard
on question of law which were open to him/her on the
state of the pleadings but which he failed to take
advantage of. Our courts have however created exceptions
to these broad principles. Akuffo Addo v. Quanshie ldun
[1968] GLR 667 AG Lavendoswky and Base Group [1971] 2
GLR The more recent authority is Food Specialties Ltd v.
Ramia [1989-90] 2 GLR where Adade JSC said:—
"I concede that this
point was not taken by either the appellant or the
respondent. But as it is a point of law, this court can
take it any time notwithstanding the fact that it was
not raised we have done that many times in this court."
The question of
jurisdiction is yet another exception can be taken or
raised even on appeal Eboe v. Eboe [1961] 1 GLR 324.
The claim for ¢20m took
this case out of the jurisdiction of the court.
Regrettably the proper step we ought to take on this
appeal is to declare the trial a nullity and set the
judgment aside.
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
FARKYE, JA.:
This judgment is in
respect of an appeal against the judgment of the Circuit
Court Accra dated 16th day of May, 2000.
In this suit, the
plaintiff/respondent issued out a writ of summons on
11/12/97 claiming against the Defendant/appellant the
following:—
(1) An order of the
Court declaring the purported dismissal of the plaintiff
a wrongful act.
(2) An order for
Plaintiff's reinstatement or in lien ¢20 million
compensation to be paid to Plaintiff for his wrongful
dismissal.
(3) Payment of end of
service benefits
(4) General damages.
The
Plaintiff/Respondent was an employee of the
Defendant/appellant as a security officer from 1/10/92
up to 1/9/97.
On 24/8/1997, while the
Plaintiff/respondent was on night duty some thieves
broke into the office of the Managing Director and four
other offices in two floors of the main office building
and the factory offices.
The thieves stole hand
calculators, a radio and a wall clock. The
Plaintiff/respondent was summarily dismissed after the
theft at the factory. The Plaintiff/respondent then
issued the writ of summons claiming what has been stated
above.
After the trial
judgment was given by the Circuit Court for the
Plaintiff/Respondent against the Defendant/appellant
hence this appeal. Learned counsel for the
Defendant/appellant filed four grounds of appeal at
first which are as follows:—
(a) The judgment is
against the weight of the evidence
(b) The learned trial
judge failed to look at the evidence before him in its
entirety and thereby arrived at a wrong conclusion on
the question of liability.
(c) The Learned trial
judge erred in awarding general damages in a wrongful
dismissal suit.
(d) The compensation
awarded is not only excessive but unknown to the law
relating to wrongful dismissal suit.
Later the Learned
Counsel for the Defendant/appellant filed additional
ground 1 of the Notice of Appeal which reads as
follows:—
"The trial Court had no
jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's case at all the
claim being in excess of ¢10,000,000.00".
I shall first deal with
the additional aground 1 of the Notice of Appeal dealing
with the jurisdiction of the Court. After dealing with
the jurisdiction of the Court it may not be necessary
for me to deal with the other grounds of appeal.
Section 41(1)(a)(i) of
the Court Act 1993 (Act 459) states that the
jurisdiction of Circuit Court shall consist of the
following:—
(a) Original
jurisdiction in civil matter:— (1) in all personal
action arising under contract or tort or for the
recovery of any liquidated sum which the amount claimed
is not more than 10 million cedis.
In this suit the 2nd
claim of the Plaintiff/appellant was as follows:—"An
order for Plaintiff's reinstatement or in lien ¢20
million compensation to be paid to the plaintiff for his
wrongful dismissal.
My understanding of
this claim is that the Plaintiff/respondent wanted the
Circuit Court to order the Defendant/Appellant to
reinstate him as a security officer in the
Defendant/Appellant's company in lien ¢20,000,000.00.
The
Plaintiff/respondent wanted the Circuit Court to grant
him ¢20,000,000.00 which comes under the recovery of
liquidated sum which is above ¢10,000,000.00.
In this regard the
claim of the Plaintiff/Respondent is well above the
jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. The jurisdiction of
the Circuit Court is a question of law as Act 459 has
stated it. A question of law can be raised at any stage
of a trial.
Therefore the learned
counsel for the Defendant/appellant could raise the
question of jurisdiction at the Court of Appeal.
Since the amount of
¢20,000,000.00 was above the jurisdiction of the Circuit
Court, it is not necessary for me to deal with the other
grounds of appeal.
The appeal is
accordingly granted. The judgment of the Circuit Court
delivered on the 6th day of May 2000 is vacated.
No order as to costs.
G. T. WOOD (MRS)
JUSTICE OF APPEAL.
FARKYE, JA.:
This judgment is in
respect of an appeal against the judgment of the Circuit
Court Accra dated 16th day of May, 2000.
In this suit, the
plaintiff/respondent issued out a writ of summons on
11/12/97 claiming against the Defendant/appellant the
following:—
(5) An order of the
Court declaring the purported dismissal of the Plaintiff
a wrongful act.
(6) An order for
Plaintiff's reinstatement or in lien ¢20million
compensation to be paid to Plaintiff for his wrongful
dismissal.
(7) Payment of end of
service benefits
(8) General damages.
The
Plaintiff/Respondent was an employee of the
Defendant/appellant as a security officer from 1/10/92
up to 1/9/97.
On 24/8/1997, while the
Plaintiff/respondent was on night duty some thieves
broke into the office of the Managing Director and four
other offices in two floors of the main office building
and the factory offices.
The thieves stole hand
calculators, a radio and a wall clock. The
Plaintiff/respondent was summarily dismissed after the
theft at the factory. The Plaintiff/respondent then
issued the writ of summons claiming what has been stated
above.
After the trial
judgment was given by the Circuit Court for the
Plaintiff/Respondent against the Defendant/appellant
hence this appeal. Learned counsel for the
Defendant/appellant filed four grounds of appeal at
first which are as follows:—
(e) The judgment is
against the weight of the evidence
(f) The learned trial
judge failed to look at the evidence before him in its
entirety and thereby arrived at a wrong conclusion on
the question of liability.
(g) The Learned trial
judge erred in awarding general damages in a wrongful
dismissal suit.
(h) The compensation
awarded is not only excessive but unknown to the law
relating to wrongful dismissal suit.
Later the Learned
Counsel for the Defendant/appellant filed additional
ground 1 of the Notice of Appeal which reads as
follows:—
"The trial Court had no
jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's case at all the
claim being in excess of ¢10,000,000.00".
I shall first deal with
the additional aground 1 of the Notice of Appeal dealing
with the jurisdiction of the Court. After dealing with
the jurisdiction of the Court it may not be necessary
for me to deal with the other grounds of appeal.
Section 41(1)(a)(i) of
the Courts Act 1993 (Act 459) states that the
jurisdiction of Circuit Court shall consist of the
following:—
(b) Original
jurisdiction in civil matters — (1) in all personal
action arising under contract or tort or for the
recovery of any liquidated sum which the amount claimed
is not more than 10 million cedis.
In this suit the 2nd
claim of the Plaintiff/appellant was as follows:—"An
order for Plaintiff's reinstatement or in lien ¢20
million compensation to be paid to the plaintiff for his
wrongful dismissal.
My understanding of
this claim is that the Plaintiff/Respondent wanted the
Circuit Court to order the Defendant/Appellant to
reinstate him as a security officer in the
Defendant/Appellant's company in lien ¢20,000,000.00.
The
Plaintiff/respondent wanted the Circuit Court to grant
him ¢20,000,000.00 which comes under the recovery of the
sum which is above
¢10,000,000.00.
In this regard the
claim of the Plaintiff/Respondent is well above the
jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. The jurisdiction of
the Circuit Court is a question of law as Act 459 has
stated it. A question of law can be raised at any stage
of a trial.
Therefore the learned
counsel for the Defendant/appellant could raise the
question of law dealing with jurisdiction at the Court
of Appeal.
Since the amount of
¢20,000,000.00 was above the jurisdiction of the Circuit
Court, it is not necessary for me to deal with the other
grounds of appeal.
The appeal is
accordingly granted. The judgment of the Circuit Court
delivered on the 6th day of May 2000 is vacated.
No order as to costs.
S. T. FARKYE
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
ROSE OWUSU:
I also agree that the
trial Circuit Court had no Jurisdiction in entertaining
the Respondent's action which among other reliefs
claimed 20 million cedis compensation for the
Respondent's wrongful dismissal in lieu of an order for
Respondent's reinstatement.
In effect, the
Respondent was claiming ¢20 million compensation if the
Court refused to order his reinstatement as it indeed
did in this case.
This issue of
jurisdiction was not raised at the trial but this does
not stop the Appellant from doing so now. As an issue of
Law, it can indeed be raised in this court.
The facts of the case
have been sufficiently set out in the judgment of my
brother and I do not intend going over same.
The notice of appeal
filed after the trial, stated four grounds which I do
not intend to go over as the conclusion arrived at, that
the trial judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the
action makes it unnecessary even to touch on them.
Counsel for the Appellant on 22/3/2001 filed three
additional grounds, ground 1 of which reads as follows:—
1. "The trial court had
no jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's case at all, the
claim being in excess of ¢10,000,000.00. In his
statement of case, he argued this ground first."
Counsel submitted that
this claim is separate and apart from one far general
damages endorsed on the writ.
The Circuit court being
a lower court has no jurisdiction except that which is
expressly conferred on it by statute. See the case of
HAUSA VRS. DAWUDA [1961] 2 GLR 550 and the recent one of
DISTRICT COURT GD 1, DUNKWA-ON-OFFIN, EX-PARTE: OWUSU
[1991] 1 GLR 136 in which the court referred to dictum
of Coussey JA. in the case of Timitimi vrs. AMABEBE
[1953] 14 WACA 374 at 376.
The jurisdiction,
conferred on the Circuit court under section 41 (1) of
the Court Act 1993 (Act 459) consists of the following:—
(a) "original
Jurisdiction in civil matters—
(i) "in all personal
actions arising under contract or tort or for the
recovery of own liquidated sum, where the amount claimed
is not more than ¢10,000,000.00.
In the Circuit Court
the Respondent's claim arose under his contract of
employment and the amount claimed was ¢20,000,000.00
compensation in lieu of his claim for an order for
reinstatement.
I am unable to agree
with counsel for the Respondent that this claim is not a
specific claim but a general request for compensation.
In that case, why did he not ask for compensation
simpliciter without tagging it to a specific sum of
money?
The fact that the final
award made by the court falls within the ¢10,000,000.00
limit of the court would not clothe it with the
Jurisdiction which it lacked from the beginning. The
determining factor is the amount claimed and not the
award made (emphasis is mine).
The issue being raised
in this appeal is a serious legal one. Jurisdiction
cannot be conferred by presumption or implication. It
can only be conferred by an agreement of the parties as
stated under section 41(3) of the court Act 1993 (Act
459) which reads as follows:—
" where the amount
claimed or the value of any land or property exceeds the
amount or value specified in subsection (1) of this
section, the Circuit Court shall, notwithstanding that
subsection, proceed to hear the case if the parties
agree that it should do so".
In this case, there was
no such agreement.
The claim for
¢20,000,000.00 took the plaintiff’s action out of the
jurisdictional realm of the Circuit Court. Consequently
the whole trial before the Circuit Court was a nullity
and same is hereby declared null and void for want of
Jurisdiction.
R. C. OWUSU(MS.)
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
COUNSEL
VDM |
