1999
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case concerns a motion for an Order of Certiorari to quash a High Court ruling. The Supreme Court addressed a preliminary point of law challenging the competency of the motion based on it being filed out of time. The Court examined Rules 62 and 66 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I. 16), which stipulate that applications to invoke the Court's supervisory jurisdiction must be filed within three months of the decision being challenged, unless an extension is granted within that same three-month period. The Court found that the application was filed on 14th November, 1997, more than five months after the original ruling of 6th June, 1997, without any extension being granted. As a result, the Court ruled that the application was incompetent and outside its jurisdiction, and therefore must be struck out. This decision emphasizes the strict adherence to procedural time limits in invoking the Supreme Court's supervisory jurisdiction.
RULING
SOPHIA A.B. AKUFFO, J.S.C.:
This is a motion praying for an Order of Certiorari quashing the ruling delivered on 6th June, 1997, by the High Court Judge, Bolgatanga, in Originating Summons No. 1/1996. In his Statement of Case in Opposition to the application herein, Counsel for the Interested Party has raised a preliminary point of law challenging the competency of the motion. The basis for the preliminary point is simple, though fundamental, and it is that the application is out of time and, therefore, not in compliance with Rule 62 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I. 16). Consequently, it is necessary for us to deal first with this preliminary point of law, since, in the event it is valid, there will be no need for us to embark upon the merits of the application itself.
According to the said Statement of Case, the application is out of time because although the decision sought to be quashed was delivered on 6th June, 1997, the motion herein was filed on 14th November, 1997. These dates are borne out by the record.
Rules 61 to 66 of C.I. 16 govern the procedure for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. Rule 62 is quite clear and it succinctly sets out, as follows, the time limits within which applications invoking the jurisdiction may be brought:—
“An application to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court shall be filed within three months of the date of the decision against which the jurisdiction is invoked unless the time is extended by the Court.”
Additionally, Rule 66 further clarifies the matter of time limits in the following manner:—
“An application for the extension of time within which to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court under Rule 62 shall not be made after the expiration of the three months period within which an application seeking to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction may be filed.”
The combined effect of these provisions is so clear as to require no lengthy expatriation. Suffice it to say that, by these provisions, a party seeking to invoke our supervisory jurisdiction must file his application within the stipulated time, unless we have specifically extended that time for him, which extension must have been obtained within the same three months period. Thus our discretion to adjust the time frame is tightly limited to extensions for which application is made within time. For the purposes of invoking our supervisory jurisdiction, time is, clearly, a crucial factor, with which an appli