DANIEL OFORI v. ECOBANK GHANA LIMITED & ORS

MAJORITY DECISION

AMADU JSC:-

1.My Lords, the trajectory of this case as disclosed by the record before me has once again brought to the fore the policy of the law expressed in the Latin maxim; interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium meaning, “it concerns the State that lawsuits be not protracted”. The dispute between the respondent and the applicant has seen a litany of applications even after substantive judgment by this Court which is the final Court of appeals in this Republic. This fact was acknowledged by my revered brother, Dotse JSC, who authored the opinion of the minority of the ordinary bench in the ruling in Civil Motion No. J5/54/2021 dated 13th July, 2021 that is sought to be reviewed by the present proceedings. In the opinion His Lordship remarked as follows;

“This case has evinced unprecedented post judgment/review applications more than in any other case in my 13 years experience on the Supreme Court Bench.”

2.The present review application is at the instance of Ecobank Ghana Limited which was the first defendant in the trial proceedings that resulted in the final appeal to this Court in Civil Appeal No. J4/11/2016 in which judgment was delivered on July 25, 2018. I shall for the sake of convenience adopt the description ‘“Applicant” for the first defendant in this ruling and “Respondent” for the plaintiff.

3.In the decision of the Court the Applicant wants reviewed, the majority of the ordinary bench of the Court (Yeboah CJ, Baffoe-Bonnie, Pwamang, Appau JJSC- Dotse JSC dissenting) refused an application by the Applicant herein for leave to reopen Civil Appeal No J4/11/2016 for that appeal to be heard de novo. The retrial was prayed for to afford the Applicant opportunity to adduce what it referred to as new evidence, the effect of which was intimated to result in the Court varying or reviewing its judgment in the substantive appeal delivered on 25th July, 2018. It is the refusal of the Applicant’s application to reopen the appeal which provoked the instant application.

4.In the application to reopen the appeal, the Applicant purported to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The majority decision of the ordinary bench read by my esteemed brother, Pwamang JSC refused the Applicant’s invitation on a number of grounds, two of which I will deal with in this ruling.

5.First, the majority of the ordinary bench took the view that the introduction of new evidence on appeal was regulated by clear provisions of the Constitution an