Court rules cannot revive a lost right of appeal — Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that procedural rules cannot be used to revive a right of appeal once that right has been lost through failure to comply with the time limits prescribed by law.

The five-member panel, presided over by Justice Sir Dennis Adjei, ruled that where the statutory period for invoking an appellate court’s jurisdiction expires, the court cannot rely on general procedural powers to restore that right.

The decision was delivered in John Adzigodi & Michael Yaka Sosu v. Padikin Aryee & Collins Adzigodi [2026] DLSC 18721.

The dispute arose after the Tema High Court delivered judgment against the plaintiffs on April 17, 2015. Rather than appeal within the prescribed three-month period, the plaintiffs applied on October 22, 2015 for an extension of time within which to appeal.

The application was filed five days after the maximum six-month period permitted under rule 9(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (C.I. 19) had expired. The High Court nevertheless granted the application on November 11, 2015.

The defendants subsequently challenged the competence of the appeal, arguing that the High Court had no jurisdiction to extend the time after the statutory period had expired.

The plaintiffs maintained that the defendants had waived their right to object because they did not challenge the extension when it was granted and subsequently participated in processes connected with the appeal.

They also relied on provisions in C.I. 47 and C.I. 19 which generally empower courts to extend time or excuse procedural non-compliance.

The Supreme Court rejected those arguments, drawing a distinction between procedural rules and the legal source of the right of appeal itself.

“The appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal is conferred on the Court of Appeal by article 137 of the Constitution and re-enacted by section 11 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) and not by the rules,” the Court stated.

It added that “where the right of appeal is lost, the court shall not have jurisdiction to use the rules to waive the right that is lost forever.”

The Court held that once the maximum period within which an application for extension could be made had expired, the High Court lost jurisdiction to entertain the application.

Consequently, the order extending the time to appeal was void, and the notice of appeal and subsequent appellate processes founded on that order were also nullities.

The Supreme Court further held that waiver, acquiescence or participation in proceedings could not validate an order made without jurisdiction.

It therefore affirmed the Court of Appeal’s ruling that its jurisdiction had not been properly invoked and dismissed the interlocutory appeal in its entirety.

The panel was presided over by Justice Sir Dennis Adjei and included Justices Amadu Tanko, Asiedu, Kwofie and Ackaah Boafo.