2024
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The applicant asked the Supreme Court of Ghana to review its own order that struck out his constitutional writ without liberty to re-file after he had neglected procedural requirements for nine months. He alleged that refusing him leave violated his constitutional rights and constituted a fundamental error amounting to exceptional circumstances. The Attorney-General and the Office of the Special Prosecutor opposed, arguing that the applicant had abused the Court’s process and that no exceptional circumstances existed. The Court held that, while the impugned order qualifies as a decision amenable to review, the applicant failed to show any fundamental error or miscarriage of justice. Emphasising the need to protect judicial resources and deter dilatory conduct, the Court dismissed the application for review.
On the 11th day of December, 2024, this Court dismissed the instant Application for review and deferred its reasoned ruling to a later date which we hereby proceed to deliver:
The Applicant seeks a review of the order of the Ordinary Bench dated 17 th July, 2024 which obliged his prayer for the withdrawal of his writ invoking our original jurisdiction, which writ had been filed without an accompanying statement of the Plaintiff's case as required under Rule 46 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I. 16)
This defective writ had been pending for well over nine (9) months and consequently, in granting the Applicant's prayer to withdraw his suit, this Court further ordered that the said withdrawal was ' without leave to reapply. Evidently, it is this latter portion of the order that has provoked the filing of the instant application.
In a seven (7) paragraphed affidavit in support of his application, the Applicant asserts that the said order denying him the right to reapply to the apex court to ' dilate on the constitutional eligibility of the body called Office of the Special Prosecutor is an egregious abuse of his fundamental human rights as a Ghanaian. '
In his statement of case, the Applicant argues that this order of the Court amounts to a fundamental error which if allowed to persist, would have debilitating effects on the administration of justice generally, and on the Applicant specifically. Consequently, he submits that these fundamental errors are so grave that they amount to exceptional circumstances which have occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice.
Specifically, the Applicant articulates the following as the particulars of exceptional circumstances constituting fundamental errors:
i. The ruling sins against the 1992 Constitution more particularly Articles 129(3), 1(2), 2(1)(b), 125(2), 17(1), 2(1)(a); and 2(2) of the 1992 Constitution.
ii. The Plaintiff/Applicant's right at law and under the 1992 Constitution to pursue a matter against a specific defendant;
iii. The ruling further sins against the 1992 Constitution in that it puts 2nd Defendant/Respondent, a body created by an enactment of our legislature, beyond the purview of judicial supervision under Article 2(1)(a), (b) and (2).
iv. Lastly, that were the ruling be allowed to st