MADAM ADWOA NSIAH v. YAA AMANKWAAH & 5 ORS
1998
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- AIKINS, J.S.C. (PRESIDING)
- MRS. J BAMFORD-ADDO, J.S.C.
- HAYFRON-BENJAMIN, J.S.C.
- AMPIAH, J.S.C.
- ACQUAH, J.S.C.
- ATUGUBA, J.S.C.
- MS. AKUFFO, J.S.C
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
1998
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Aikins J.S.C., presiding, delivered the Supreme Courts ruling on an application by the plaintiff/applicant to review the Courts earlier refusal of special leave to appeal from a Court of Appeal decision that had set aside a Circuit Court judgment in Kumasi concerning possession of rooms in House No. Plot 8, Block 11, Manhyia. After the respondents successful appeal in the Court of Appeal, the applicants direct appeal to the Supreme Court was struck out for lack of leave under section 4(1)(b) of Act 459. The applicant then sought special leave under article 131(2), supported by extensive affidavits and exhibits. In this review, the Court unanimously held that the application failed to satisfy the prerequisites for special leave and that deciding the motion without further oral argument was proper under Rule 23(1) of C.I.16. Concurring opinions, notably by Atuguba J.S.C., emphasized that mere prima facie error is insufficient and that review jurisdiction is reserved for exceptional circumstances.
RULING
AIKINS, J.S.C.:
This is an application for review of this court's ruling of 12 December, 1996 dismissing the application by the Plaintiff/Applicant for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal of the Defendants/Appellants/ Respondents against the judgment of the Circuit Court, Kumasi.
The applicant had secured judgment in the Circuit Court, Kumasi in an action for recovery of possession of certain rooms occupied by the respondents in House No. Plot 8, Block 11 Manhyia, Kumasi on 6 August, 1993. Dissatisfied with the judgment the respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal on 9 November, 1995 and set aside the judgment of the Circuit Court.
The applicant was aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal and appealed to the Supreme Court. The respondents filed a motion on notice to dismiss the appeal as incompetent and void because as the case originated in the Circuit Court, ie. a court below the High Court, the appeal to the Supreme Court required leave of the Court of Appeal in accordance with section 4(1)(b) of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459). At the hearing of the case counsel for the applicant readily conceded the objection raised, and in the result the appeal was struck out on 19 March, 1996. Still not satisfied the applicant applied to this court for special leave under the provisions of clause (2) of Article 131 of the Constitution. The application was supported by a 21 paragraphed affidavit setting out in full detail the facts of the whole case with copies of the building plan, the building permit, the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 9 November 1995 and respondents' Motion on Notice for Interim Injunction filed in the Registry of this Court, attached.
The respondents raised a preliminary legal objection to the application that this court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application either under the Constitution or the Courts Act, 1993. The Court over-ruled the preliminary legal objection by a split decision of 3 to 2, and proceeded to dismiss the application for special leave. It is against the ruling dismissing the application for special leave that the applicant is before the court seeking a review of the Court's decision.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued in his statement of case filed on 26 May, 1997 that the decision of the court has occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice as his application for special