Lamptey Vrs Lamptey & 2 Ors [2021] GHASC 128 (1 December 2021)

Lamptey Vrs Lamptey & 2 Ors [2021] GHASC 128 (1 December 2021)

Service of the Registrar’s certificate of non-compliance on counsel who filed the notice of appeal is proper service; the Court of Appeal did not wrongly exercise its discretion in refusing to relist the appeal, but in the interest of justice and to avoid penalizing the client for counsel’s failures, the Supreme Court relisted the appeal for hearing on the merits.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 128
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant/appellant: Nii Lante Lamptey; Defendant: R. O. Lamptey; Defendant: Nii Teiko Okine; 3rd Defendant/respondent/respondent: FKA Company Ltd
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
1 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Relist Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal’s refusal to relist set aside; appeal restored for hearing on the merits; costs awarded against Appellant’s counsel.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Restoration of Struck Out Appeals, Responsibility of Counsel, Compliance With Court Rules
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appellate Practice Service of Process Exercise of Judicial Discretion Restoration of Struck Out Appeals Responsibility of Counsel Compliance With Court 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nii Lante Lamptey

Plaintiff/appellant/appellant

R. O. Lamptey

Defendant

Nii Teiko Okine

Defendant

FKA Company Ltd

3rd Defendant/respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Relist Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of the Registrar’s certificate of non-compliance on counsel is proper service under the rules
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly exercised its discretion in refusing to relist the appeal
  3. 3 Whether the refusal to relist was against the weight of evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Service of the Registrar’s certificate of non-compliance on counsel who filed the notice of appeal is proper service; the Court of Appeal did not wrongly exercise its discretion in refusing to relist the appeal, but in the interest of justice and to avoid penalizing the client for counsel’s failures, the Supreme Court relisted the appeal for hearing on the merits.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Court of Appeal’s refusal to relist set aside; appeal restored for hearing on the merits; costs awarded against Appellant’s counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed and the appeal to the Court of Appeal is restored for hearing on the merits.
  • Costs of GH₵10,000.00 awarded against the Appellant to be paid by Counsel for the Appellant.