Try asking the following...
R U L I N G
ATUGUBA, J.S.C
This is an application for special leave to appeal to this court from a judgment of the Court of Appeal dated the 15th day of December 2006. The applicant before this, had applied unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal for extension of time within which to appeal to this court from the said judgment. It is important to note that the action in this case originated from the Fast Track High Court, Accra. This application has been brought under article 131 (2) of the Constitution.
Article 131 provides as follows:
x x x x x x x x x x x
It is doubtful whether under these provisions an application for special leave lies where the case was commenced in the High Court at first instance thereon.
However, assuming this application can be entertained by this court it could not succeed. The core issue raised in this application is whether the courts below erred in not raising the issue of illegality of the sale transaction because payment of the purchase price was expressed in foreign exchange. Counsel for the applicant did not seek to cast any adverse aspersion on that decision. That being the case it cannot be said that this application raises any question of law of public or general importance. The discretion of this court to grant special leave to appeal has been considered in several cases see DOLPHYNE (No. 2) “SPEEDLINE STEVEDORING CO LTD (1996 – 997) SCGLR 373, NSIAH V. AMANKWAAH (1996 – 1997) SCGLR 453, ANSAH V. ATSEM (2001 – 2002) SCGLR 906, etc. However in view of what I have earlier said about the evidence at the trial this application is aptly covered by the words of Lord Davey in delivering the judgment of the Privy Council in WILLIAM ENING & CO VS. THE DOMINION BANK (1904) A.C 806 P. (at 807 where he said: “Their Lordships will not be disposed to advise His Majesty to exercise his prerogative in favour of the petitioners unless they were satisfied that there were strong grounds for believing that a very important question of law was involved, and the petitioners had made out a prima facie case which would warrant their Lordships in advising His Majesty to give special leave to appeal.”
It is true that the courts have gone to the extent of questions aimed at ascertaining whether there is illegality as soon as evidence tending in that direction is given.
However in this case there was no such evidence tending to show that the relevant consent was not obtained. The factual matters upon which the provision operates cannot sim