Penrose v Akpo (J8/54/2025) [2025] GHASC 88 (11 December 2025)

Page 1 of 3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE SUPREME COURT ACCRA – AD.2025 CORAM: KOOMSON JSC (SITTING AS A SINGLE JUDGE) CIVIL APPEAL NO. J8/54/2025 11TH DECEMBER 2025 DEESA PENROSE (SUBST. ………………. PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/ BY EBUSUAPANYIN KOFI APPELLANT/APPELLANT. DOODU) VRS. NII NUERTEY AKPO I ……………. DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT. THE RULING OF THE COURT Page 2 of 3 I have listened to both Counsel on their submissions in respect of the present application seeking the relistment or restoration of the appeal lodged against the decision of the Court of Appeal dated 13 th February 2014. The Plaintiff/Appellant/Applicant lodged an Appeal and complied with the conditions of the Appeal. The appeal was struck out by the Supreme Court on the 9th February 2016 for non-compliance with rule 15 of the Supreme Court Rules. I have given regard to the submission of Counsel for Defendant/Respondent/Respondent that the application violates the key equitable principle of candour and thus fails to meet the pre-requisite threshold for the court to grant its discretion. Counsel refers to Paragraph 11 of the Affidavit in support where the Applicant stated that he was not in court when the appeal was struck out. It is to be noted that for a party to abandon a case for a period of 9 years is ordinarily too tardy unless very cogent and reasonable reasons are raised, I do not think the court should give such an Applicant a hearing for the restoration of his appeal. In the instant case, the Applicant concedes that he has delayed in pursuing this case. However, the Applicant contends that he fell ill, that is to say, he suffered stroke and has been battling with his health. I have examined the evidence which the Applicant has attached to his Affidavit in support depicting and evidencing his health condition. I must say that Counsel for the Defendant/ Respondent/Respondent has made cogent submissions to oppose the grant of the application. In the ordinary course of things, I would not have given the Applicants application any considerat ion, it is however in my view that given the debilitating nature of stroke, I will accept the case of the Applicant that he was unable to pursue the case due to the health, situation he found himself. As indicated earlier, the period of 9 years is an inordinate delay. However, I am of the view that given the circumstances of the case, as each case is looked at on its own merits, I am inclined to grant the application for the merits of the substantive ca se to be determined once and for all between the disputed parties. This I think shall bring a lasting solution between the feuding parties. Accordingly, the application for Page 3 of 3 relistment of the appeal is granted. I will award costs of GH ₵50,000.00 against the Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant/Applicant. The Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant/ Applicant is given 7 days within which to file his statement of case. (SGD.) G. K. KOOMSON (JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT) COUNSEL RAPHAEL BANAAGMEN ESQ. FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ APPLICANT. A. K. BANNERMAN WILLIAMS ESQ. FOR DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT.