Tindana Vrs.Chief Of Defence Staff and Others [2011] GHASC 17 (12 April 2011)

Tindana Vrs.Chief Of Defence Staff and Others [2011] GHASC 17 (12 April 2011)

The appeal was filed outside the three-month period prescribed by rule 9 of the Court of Appeal Rules, CI 19, without an order for extension of time. This rendered the appeal incompetent and deprived the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of jurisdiction to consider the merits. The procedural defect was fatal and the proceedings were a nullity.

Citation
[2011] GHASC 17
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Captain Robert Mba Tindana; Defendant/respondent: The Chief of Defence Staff; Defendant/respondent: The Minister of Defence; Defendant/respondent: The Attorney General
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
12 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal struck out as incompetent
Legal Topics
Fundamental Human Rights, Right of Appeal, Jurisdiction, Procedural Compliance
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Military Law Civil Procedure Fundamental Human Rights Right of Appeal Jurisdiction Procedural Compliance

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Captain Robert Mba Tindana

Plaintiff/appellant

The Chief of Defence Staff

Defendant/respondent

The Minister of Defence

Defendant/respondent

The Attorney General

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed time under rule 9 of the Court of Appeal Rules, CI 19
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to consider the appeal on the merits given the late filing
  3. 3 Whether parties must be heard on a point raised suo motu by the court under rule 6.8 of the Supreme Court Rules, CI 16

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was filed outside the three-month period prescribed by rule 9 of the Court of Appeal Rules, CI 19, without an order for extension of time. This rendered the appeal incompetent and deprived the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of jurisdiction to consider the merits. The procedural defect was fatal and the proceedings were a nullity.

Court Disposition

appeal struck out as incompetent

Orders

  • The appeal is struck out as incompetent.
  • The entire proceedings are set aside as a nullity.