Extension of time in Ghana case law.

In view of the doubts expressed, and there are now two conflicting judgments of this court, it is eminently desirable and in the public interest that a final and authoritative pronouncement be made on this aspect of the law by the Supreme Court. It is for these reasons that I will extend time.

CFAO v. ZACCA [1972] 1 GLR 366 [1972] SLR (CA) 1 · Court of Appeal · 1972 · AZU CRABBE JSC

In order that a court can judicially exercise discretion in favour of an applicant for an enlargement of time who had a right but had lost it, all the facts in favour of, as well as all the facts against, the suppliant for the favour of the court must be before the court. It is only when the other party is also before the court that a judicial exercise of the court’s powers of discretion, if any, can be just and equitable, i.e. judicial, but not if the court should hear only one side and not the other. Therefore the person whose legal rights or whose position will be affected by the grant of the favour sought, must be heard. This rule applies to all applications for the exercise of a court’s discretion except where a statute provides otherwise, or where no person other than the applicant himself would be affected by the grant of the indulgence sought.

MENSAH AND OTHERS v. NSOWAH [1964] GLR 288 [1964] SLR (SC) 29 · Supreme Court · 1964 · OLLENNU JSC

Where a statute or an order of court appoints or fixes the time within which a person may do an act or take proceedings, it thereby confers upon the party a privilege which he may exercise as of right within the appointed or fixed period. Once the time expires, the right is lost. The loss by one party of his right in this regard, ensures to the other party, unmolested enjoyment of any right he has acquired from the matter, e.g. the judgment which his opponent seeks to have vacated. That other party therefore who would be affected if the application sought by his opponent is granted has a right to be heard in opposition to the application for extension of time, and it will be unjust and inequitable if the court should make an order affecting the right which has accrued to him without first hearing him.

MENSAH AND OTHERS v. NSOWAH [1964] GLR 288 [1964] SLR (SC) 29 · Supreme Court · 1964 · OLLENNU JSC

We would restate the rule of law as follows: Application for extension of time made after the expiration of the time limit allowed, cannot be granted upon an ex parte application, unless there is no person apart from the applicant who would be affected by an order made upon that application, or unless it is so provided by rules or by an order of court. The application for enlargement of time in this case having been made without notice to the appellants who would be affected by an order made thereon, the grant thereof is void and ineffective. The respondent therefore was not properly before the High Court. It is still open to him to apply for an enlargement of time or to pursue his remedy by other proceedings.

MENSAH AND OTHERS v. NSOWAH [1964] GLR 288 [1964] SLR (SC) 29 · Supreme Court · 1964 · OLLENNU JSC