ABABIO AND OTHERS v. MENSAH AND OTHERS (NO. 2)
1989
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- SOWAH C.J.
- TAYLOR
- FRANCOIS
- WUAKU
- AMUA-SEKYI JJ.S.C
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law
- Administrative Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
1989
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court of Ghana, per Sowah C.J. for the majority, dismissed an application to review its 24 November 1988 decision that had refused leave to appeal in a long-running dispute over the Techimantia stool properties and the status of Nana Praka Ababio as Techimantiahene. The majority stated this was not a proper case for reviewing a prior judgment and found no exceptional circumstances to warrant review, awarding costs to the respondents. Taylor J.S.C. dissented in a detailed opinion, asserting that the Brong-Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs and the National House of Chiefs acted without original jurisdiction in matters belonging to the Kumasi Traditional Council, rendering their orders nullities. He urged that ex debito justitiae the Supreme Court should set aside void orders, restore possession to the Techimantiahene, and grant review. The court’s ultimate disposition was to dismiss the review.
JUDGMENT OF SOWAH C.J.
He delivered the ruling of the majority court. We think this is not a proper case in which we should review our own judgment pronounced on 24 November 1988 (see Ababio v. Mensah [1989-90] 1 G.L.R. 561, S.C. ante). We are not persuaded that there are exceptional circumstances warranting a review. We dismiss the application with costs of ¢40,000 to the respondents.
JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.S.C.
This is a final court of last resort and I am therefore unable with the utmost respect to concur in the majority ruling which the Chief Justice has delivered this morning. I do not find the ratio decidendi in this decision by which we have denied the applicants access to this court to demonstrate to us that our ruling of 24 November 1988 was given per incuriam. We surely do not claim infallibility in the fashion of the ex cathedra pronouncements of the Roman Catholic papacy. I find it really very embarrassing and I am sincerely very sad having regard to the fact that my minority opinion in this case on 24 November 1988 dealt exhaustively with the reasons why a review must be considered a sine qua non if the applicants are to have justice. And yet my ratio decidendi was not even commented upon.
The ruling this morning is with respect so terse as to unduly simplify the complex legal issues that have clearly eluded the chieftaincy tribunals which have had occasion to handle the case. It is because of what in my opinion is the rather cursory manner this court has, with respect, disposed of this extremely important motion, that I have decided to make a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the unchallenged facts of the case and to pinpoint the undoubtedly relevant applicable constitutional and statutory provisions which in my humble view conclusively fault any decision denying the applicants access to this court.
By their motion before us the applicants seek an order to review the ruling of this court given on 24 November 1988. The ruling was a majority decision of 4 to 1 (see [1989-90] 1 G.L.R. 561, S.C. ante) in which [p.577] we refused to grant the applicants leave to appeal to this court for the purpose of impugning a decision of the chieftaincy tribunal of the National House of Chiefs given on 16 October 1986. I held the lone minority opinion on the said ruling and in my dissent I endeavoured to canvass in some detail the legal reasons why (with the greatest respect) the decision of the national chieftaincy tribunal must perforce be cons