Sunbeltic Company Ltd Vrstema Development Corporation & 2 Ors [2021] GHASC 168 (14 April 2021)

Sunbeltic Company Ltd Vrstema Development Corporation & 2 Ors [2021] GHASC 168 (14 April 2021)

The Court of Appeal acted judicially in re-listing the appeal because the affidavit of service failed to name the individual served at the law firm, creating a legitimate controversy as to whether proper service was effected. The explanation for non-appearance was reasonable, and the requirement to demonstrate an...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] GHASC 168
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent/respondent: Sunbeltic Company Limited; Defendant/appellant/appellant: Tema Development Corporation; Defendant/appellant/appellant: Sethi Brothers; Defendant/appellant/appellant: Sethi Realty Company Limited
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
14 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Court of Appeal Decision Re Listing an Appeal Struck Out for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Re Listing of Appeal, Service of Process, Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Proper Service on Counsel
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Re Listing of Appeal Service of Process Exercise of Judicial Discretion Proper Service on Counsel

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sunbeltic Company Limited

Plaintiff/respondent/respondent

Tema Development Corporation

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Sethi Brothers

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Sethi Realty Company Limited

Defendant/appellant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Court of Appeal Decision Re Listing an Appeal Struck Out for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in re-listing the appeal after it was struck out for want of prosecution
  2. 2 Whether proper service of hearing notice was effected on the respondent's counsel
  3. 3 Whether the applicant for re-listment must demonstrate an arguable case on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal acted judicially in re-listing the appeal because the affidavit of service failed to name the individual served at the law firm, creating a legitimate controversy as to whether proper service was effected. The explanation for non-appearance was reasonable, and the requirement to demonstrate an arguable case was not material at the re-listment stage. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the Court of Appeal's exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • decision of the Court of Appeal re-listing the appeal is affirmed