MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & ORS

RULING

DOTSE JSC:

Writing on the topic, “The Supreme Court and the Power of Review” S.Y. Bimpong-Buta, in Volume XVII, 1989-90, Review of Ghana Law, stated thus:

“Whatever lurking doubts existed in the law as to whether or not the Supreme Court (as the final appellate court in Ghana) has the power to have a second look at its previous decisions with a view to correcting its errors or setting it aside on an application by a dissatisfied party were affirmatively resolved by the landmark majority decision in Fosuhene v Pomaa, delivered on 26 November 1987. The majority in this case, made of Adade and Taylor JJSC and Abban JA, “held inter alia, that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to correct its own errors by way of review and that the application for review must be “founded on compelling reasons and exceptional circumstances dictated by the interest of justice”. Indeed, on the same day that the majority decision was given in Fosuhene, the same Judges who formed the majority in Fosuhene, also held in Nasali v Addy [1987-88] 2 GLR 286 that the Supreme Court had the power to review its decision.”

It should be noted that, the decisions referred to supra in the article by Dr. S. Y. Bimpong-Buta, were delivered before the enactment of the Constitution 1992 and the Supreme Court Rules, 1996, C. I. 16.

Now, this review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is provided for under article 133 (1) & (2) of the Constitution 1992 and Rules 54-60 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996, C. I. 16.

Rule 54 (a) of C. I. 16 under which this review application has been brought by the Plaintiff/Applicant hereafter referred to as the Applicant, states as follows:-

“The Court may review a decision made or given by it on the ground of (a) exceptional circumstances which have resulted in a miscarriage of justice.”

Before considering the merits of the instant application, which is seeking to review the judgment of this court rendered on the 14th day of June 2013, it is worthwhile to observe that in both the Fosuhene and Nasali cases, the emphasis of the Supreme Court was that, a review might be granted in the following situations:

i. Compelling and exceptional circumstances dictated by the interests of justice

ii. Exceptional circumstances where the demands of justice made the exercise extremely necessary to avoid irreparable damage.

The interest of ensuring justice is therefore at the core of considerations that might lead to a grant of a review application.

With the above as a