GAMING COMMISSION VS NATIONAL LOTTERY AUTHORTY & ORS
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE SAMUEL K. A. ASIEDU
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2016
HIGH COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The 5th defendant's application to vary a court order dated December 3, 2015, is examined. The court highlights that the application is out of time according to Order 42 of the High Court Rules, as it was filed on February 16, 2016. The court further discusses that the applicant has not satisfied the conditions required to invoke the court’s inherent jurisdiction. Consequently, the application is dismissed.
The instant application filed on the 16th day of February, 2016 by the 5th defendant herein seeks an order of the court to vary an order to deposit money made on the 3rd day of December, 2015. The body of the motion as well as the supporting affidavit wrongly stated that the court order which it seeks variation thereof was made on the 4th day of December, 2015. The court had, on the 3rd day of December 2015, made an order that the applicant herein pays, the fees/charges/revenue which was due to be paid to either the plaintiff or the 1st defendant in this matter, to the Registrar of this court within 7 days from the 3rd day of December, 2015. Equally, the other defendants who were obliged to pay fees/charges/revenues to either the plaintiff or the 1st defendant were all ordered to pay such monies to the Registrar of the court.
The monies were to be deposited in an interest yielding account by the Registrar pending the court’s determination of the case.
It is this order that applicant seeks to vary.
The plaintiff herein has indicated to the court that it is not opposed to the application.
However, the 1st defendant is opposed to the application on a number of grounds as indicated in its affidavit in opposition.
The motion is silent on whether the application is premised upon the inherent jurisdiction of the court or on the powers given the court under Order 42 of the High Court Rules of Civil Procedure CI 47. The court wishes to point out, as already indicated, that the order being sought to be varied was made on the 3rd day of December, 2015. If the application is therefore premised upon the powers given to the court to vary or review its orders under Order 42 of the Rules of the High Court then the instant application which was filed on the 16th day of February 2016 is out of time considering that under rule 2(2) of Order 42 of the Rules of Procedure of the High Court; such application ought to have been filed within fourteen days from the date on which the order sought to be reviewed was made.
However, if the motion is premised on the inherent jurisdiction of the court then one needs to consider whether conditions for the invocation of the court’s inherent jurisdiction has been satisfied by the applicant.
In Omaboe vs. Kwame [1978] GLR 122, the court set out the circumstances under which a party could pray the court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.
According to the Court of Appeal“the court had an inherent jurisdiction to set aside or vary