Edmund Ocansey v. The Tenant (Joyce) and ORS

MARIAMA OWUSU, J.A.:

On the 24th day of October, 2011, the High Court, Accra, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit against the defendants.

The Court held among other things as follows:

“It is an elementary principle of law known to all law students that the decisions of the Court of Appeal are binding on the High Court and all lower Courts and I am precluded from hearing and determining a matter that had already been decided by the Court of Appeal.

I will therefore answer the first issue and say that this Court is not competent to determine this suit.

Order 33 rule 5 provides as follows: “Where it appears to the Court that the decision on any question or issue arising in any cause or matters and tried separately from the main cause or matter substantially disposes of the cause or matter or renders trial of the main cause or matter unnecessary, it may dismiss the cause or matter or make such other order or give such judgment as may be just.” From the conclusions I have arrived at on the issues set down for arguments in this suit especially the conclusion that this Court is not competent to determine this suit in my view, renders the trial of the main cause or matter unnecessary and accordingly I proceed to dismiss this suit.

I award cost of one thousand Ghana cedis (GH¢1,000.00) against the plaintiff in favour of the defendants.” Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:

1. The said judgment declined jurisdiction to enforce the rights of the applicant herein to his property, contrary to article 140 (1) of the Constitution.

2. The said judgment based its decision on the wrong interpretation of constitutional provisions, to wit; Article 107(a), 130 (1), 136(5), 129(3), without considering 35(1) and 37 as they apply to another law, Confiscated Assets (removal of doubts) Law, 1993 (PNDC Law 325).

3. The trial court, having been confronted with Constitutional Provisions requiring enforcement, but of which it was not certain, should have stayed judgment and referred same to the Supreme Court under Rule 67(1) of the Supreme Court Rules for guidance and directives from the Superior Court, but failed to do so.

The relief sought from the Court of Appeal is to nullify the judgment and grant the reliefs sought by the appellant.

Before dealing with the arguments advanced in support and against this appeal, I would give a brief background of this case.

By his amended writ of summons