Axes Company Ltd Vrs Opoku and Others [2011] GHASC 1 (26 January 2011)

Axes Company Ltd Vrs Opoku and Others [2011] GHASC 1 (26 January 2011)

By majority, the Supreme Court held that the summary judgment entered by the High Court was interlocutory, not final, as it did not finally dispose of all the rights of the parties and left substantive issues for further determination. Consequently, the order granting extension of time to appeal was incompetent, and the appeal before the Court of Appeal was a nullity.

Citation
[2011] GHASC 1
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Axes Company Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Kwame Opoku; Defendant/appellant: Sylop Company Ltd.; Defendant/appellant: Unique Company Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
26 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal struck out as incompetent for want of jurisdiction; order granting extension of time set aside.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Final Vs Interlocutory Orders, Extension of Time for Appeal, Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Banking Law Summary Judgment Final Vs Interlocutory Orders Extension of Time for Appeal Jurisdiction

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

Parties

Axes Company Ltd

Plaintiff/respondent

Kwame Opoku

Defendant/appellant

Sylop Company Ltd.

Defendant/appellant

Unique Company Ltd.

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the summary judgment entered by the High Court was final or interlocutory
  2. 2 Whether the application for extension of time to appeal was competent
  3. 3 Whether the order granting extension of time was valid

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Supreme Court held that the summary judgment entered by the High Court was interlocutory, not final, as it did not finally dispose of all the rights of the parties and left substantive issues for further determination. Consequently, the order granting extension of time to appeal was incompetent, and the appeal before the Court of Appeal was a nullity.

Court Disposition

Appeal struck out as incompetent for want of jurisdiction; order granting extension of time set aside.

Orders

  • Appeal struck out as incompetent
  • Order granting extension of time to appeal set aside