Lamptey Vrs Lamptey and Others [2021] GHASC 103 (1 December 2021)

Lamptey Vrs Lamptey and Others [2021] GHASC 103 (1 December 2021)

The Court of Appeal did not wrongly exercise its discretion in refusing to relist the appeal, as service on counsel was proper and the delay in filing submissions was unreasonable. However, in the interest of justice and to avoid penalizing the client for counsel’s failures, the Supreme Court exercised its discretion to allow the appeal and relist the matter for hearing on the merits, but imposed costs against counsel.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 103
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 in the exercise of discretion; grounds of appeal dismissed as unsubstantiated; costs awarded against counsel for appellant
Legal Topics
Relisting of Appeal, Service of Process, Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Counsel's Responsibility, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appellate Practice Relisting of Appeal Service of Process Exercise of Judicial Discretion Counsel's Responsibility Costs

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

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal did not wrongly exercise its discretion in refusing to relist the appeal, as service on counsel was proper and the delay in filing submissions was unreasonable. However, in the interest of justice and to avoid penalizing the client for counsel’s failures, the Supreme Court exercised its discretion to allow the appeal and relist the matter for hearing on the merits, but imposed costs against counsel.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in the exercise of discretion; grounds of appeal dismissed as unsubstantiated; costs awarded against counsel for appellant

Orders

  • Appeal allowed to the extent that the matter is relisted for hearing on the merits in the Court of Appeal
  • Costs of GH₵10,000.00 awarded against the Appellant to be paid by Counsel for the Appellant