COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA
Date: 23 OCTOBER 1975
APALOO AG C.J ARCHER AND FRANCOIS JJ A
CASES REFERRED TO
(1) State Gold Mining Corporation v. Sissala [1971] 1 G.L.R. 359, C.A.
(2) Taunton-Collins v. Cromie [1964] 1 W.L.R. 633; [1964] 2 All E.R. 332; 108 S.J. 277, C.A.
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
APPEAL without leave against a ruling of the High Court refusing to refer a dispute to arbitration. The facts as stated in the headnotes are taken from the ruling of the High Court reported in [1973] 2 G.L.R. 100.
COUNSEL
Lokko for the applicants.
E. D. Kom for the respondents.
[p.395] of [1975] 2 GLR 394
JUDGMENT OF APALOO AG. C.J.
Apaloo Ag. C.J. delivered the ruling of the court. The real question in this case as between the defendants and the third party is whether the latter are, on a true construction of the policy of insurance, liable to indemnify the former for any judgment that the plaintiff may recover against them. The third party’s position is that they are not so liable. That was the difference between them.
The third party also sought to have the proceedings stayed and the matter referred to arbitration so that this difference between them may thereby be decided. The judge refused to accede to this. The third party claimed to be aggrieved by this and without, obtaining the leave of either the High Court or this court in accordance with section 10 (5) of the Courts Act, 1971, appealed as of right.
The question is whether this ruling was final or interlocutory. If it was the former, they were properly in this court, if it was the latter, this appeal is incompetent. It was urged by counsel for the applicants that the ruling was final and was therefore appealed as of right.
We feel no doubt at all that the ruling was interlocutory, the rights and obligations of the applicants and the respondents not having been finally resolved: see State Gold Mining Corporation v. Sissala [1971] 1G.L.R. 359, C.A. and the English case of Taunton-Collins v. Cromie [1964] 2 All E.R. 332, C.A.
We hold therefore, that this appeal is not properly before us, and it is accordingly dismissed with costs fixed at 0100.00 for the respondents.
DECISION
Appeal dismissed.
K. S. N.-D.
