2015
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The applicant sought a review of a Supreme Court decision which had overturned a trial court's ruling favoring the applicant’s father. The core dispute involved the validity of a lease forfeiture after the applicant’s father refused the respondent's rent payment by cheque. The Supreme Court decided on a waiver of forfeiture issue not initially raised in the trial court. The applicant contended the Supreme Court did not provide an opportunity to contest this new issue, alleging procedural unfairness and miscarriage of justice. The review was dismissed by the Supreme Court, which emphasized its statutory review power must be used only in exceptional circumstances. The court maintained that no miscarriage of justice was demonstrated and affirmed its decision to resolve all legal issues arising from the pleadings to ensure finality in the proceedings.
DOTSE, JSC:-
By this application, the Plaintiff/Applicant, hereafter referred to as the Applicant
is seeking a review of the decision of the ordinary bench of this court, delivered
on 29th July 2015 wherein the Defendant/ Respondent, hereafter referred to as
the Respondent, was adjudged as having been successful in the appeal launched
by him which accordingly set aside the decision of the trial court and allowed the
appeal of the Respondent herein.
In order to understand in proper context, the issues upon which the Applicant
herein filed the instant review application, we have decided to set out in extenso,
the relevant parts of the affidavit of the Applicant in support of the application
for review as follows:-
The Applicant deposed to in paragraphs 8, through to 23 as follows:-
8. ”Incidentally, after the denial of this title and my father had positively
evinced an intention to eject them from the land, the respondent and his
brother offered to appease him by sending a cheque by letter to his lawyer
as rent advance for ten years, but my father refused to accept the cheque
to pay him rent so he did not cash the cheque and allowed it to go
stale.
9. As part of his case my father made reference in his statement of claim to
this offer to pay him rent to induce him to get him to waive his right to
forfeit the lease and contended that because he did not cash the cheque
the forfeiture had not been waived.
10. In his statement of defence the respondent did not deny the offer of the
cheque to induce my father to waive his right to forfeit the lease and
that the cheque rejected by not being cashed; rather the
respondent relied on the offer of the cheque and the view that the
denial of title was by their lawyer to plead that the court ought to grant
him relief against forfeiture. He, however never contended that though the
cheque was not cashed my father had nevertheless did something to
waive the forfeiture.
11. Because of that the case proceeded on only two issues, namely,
whether there has been a denial of my father’s title and whether
relief could be granted against forfeiture upon denial of a
landlord’s title, but in its judgment the court found the
respondent and his brother guilty of denying my father’s title but
said nothing about the plea for relief against forfeiture.
12. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal against the decision that
he and his brother had committed an act amounting to denial of their
l