MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL & OTHERS
2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- ANSAH, JSC (PRESIDING)
- DORDZIE, JSC,
- KOTEY, JSC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Constitutional Law
2019
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case involved the applicant invoking Article 134(b) of the Ghanaian Constitution to reverse a Supreme Court single judge's decision regarding execution proceedings initiated by the Attorney General after a ruling requiring the applicant to refund money to the state. The applicant contested the single judge's jurisdiction, arguing for High Court execution to allow for appeals. The Supreme Court dismissed the application, affirming its authority to enforce its own decisions. Key legal principles discussed included the jurisdiction of a single Supreme Court justice, execution of Supreme Court decisions, and the criteria for review based on exceptional circumstances to prevent miscarriage of justice.
RULING
DORDZIE (MRS), JSC:-
This application is brought under Article 134 (b) of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana. The applicant herein is praying this court to reverse the decision of the single judge of this court delivered on the 3rd of December 2018.
Article 134 of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana empowers a single justice of the Supreme Court to exercise the powers vested in the Supreme Court in matters that do not involve the decision of the cause or matter before the Supreme Court; and any order, decision or direction made or given by the single judge under Article 134 may be varied, discharged or reversed by a three member panel of the Court. Article 134 reads:
A single Justice of the Supreme Court may exercise power vested in the Supreme Court not involving the decision of the cause or matter before the Supreme Court, except that -
(a) in criminal matters, where that Justice refuses or grants an application in the exercise of any such power, a person affected by it is entitled to have the application determined by the Supreme Court constituted by three Justices of the Supreme Court and
(b) in civil matters, any order, direction or decision made or given under this article may be varied, discharged or reversed by the Supreme Court constituted by three Justices of the Supreme Court.
To effectively accommodate the benefit of the above provisions of the Constitution the procedural rules of this Court C. I 16 were amended. The Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2016 C. I 98 amended C. I. 16 by substituting Rule 73.
The amended Rule 73 reads:
“Review of decision of single justice
73. (1) A person dissatisfied with the decision of a single justice of the Supreme Court in respect of an application determined under article 134 of the Constitution, may apply to the Supreme Court to have the application determined by three justices of the Court.
(2) The application to have the cause or matter determined by the three justices shall be by motion on notice and shall be served on any other party who has an interest in the cause or matter”
The applicant therefore, in exercising the right conferred on him by Article 134(b) of The Constitution brought this application for the reversal of the single judge’s decision of 3rd December 2018 which did not go in his favour.
Background leading to the application
In a review decision of this court dated 29th of July 2014 in Suit N0: J7/10/2013 titled:
Martin Alamisi Amidu v 1. The A