La Dadekotopon Youth Association Vrstsuru Iii & Anor [2021] GHASC 161 (31 March 2021)

La Dadekotopon Youth Association Vrstsuru Iii & Anor [2021] GHASC 161 (31 March 2021)

The Supreme Court held that under the amended Rule 20 of C.I.19, where applications for extension of time and for non-compliance are pending contemporaneously, the Court of Appeal must hear the extension application first. The Court of Appeal did not err in granting the extension, having exercised its discretion judicially and awarded costs against the defaulting party.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 161
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent/appellant: La Dadekotopon Youth Association; Defendants/appellants/respondents/respondents: Nii Kpobi Tettey Tsuru III (substituted by Nii Obodai Adai IV for and on behalf of La Stool) & 18 Ors.; 10th Defendant/appellant/applicant/respondent: Edmund Joseph Obodai Mensah
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
31 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal in the Supreme Court From a Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appeals, Extension of Time, Non Compliance With Procedural Rules
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appeals Extension of Time Non Compliance With Procedural Rules

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

La Dadekotopon Youth Association

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent/appellant

Nii Kpobi Tettey Tsuru III (substituted by Nii Obodai Adai IV for and on behalf of La Stool) & 18 Ors.

Defendants/appellants/respondents/respondents

Edmund Joseph Obodai Mensah

10th Defendant/appellant/applicant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal in the Supreme Court From a Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in hearing and granting an application for extension of time to file written submissions when a summons for non-compliance was pending
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion judicially in granting the extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that under the amended Rule 20 of C.I.19, where applications for extension of time and for non-compliance are pending contemporaneously, the Court of Appeal must hear the extension application first. The Court of Appeal did not err in granting the extension, having exercised its discretion judicially and awarded costs against the defaulting party.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff