MOHAMMED ODARTEY LAMPTEY v. LANDS COMMISSION & OTHERS
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- OFOE, JA (PRESIDING)
- ADUAMA OSEI, JA
- WELBOURNE (MRS.) JA
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
2015
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case concerns an application to the Court of Appeal to discharge an order made by a single judge who dismissed a stay of execution pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Court examined the scope of article 138(b) of the Constitution, which allows the Court of Appeal as duly constituted to vary, discharge, or reverse orders made by a single justice. The Court held that while this power exists, it should be exercised judiciously to prevent abuse of process and unnecessary delays in litigation. The Court emphasized that interference with a single judge's order should only occur when the order is unwarranted in law or would cause injustice if not altered. In this case, the Court found no compelling reason to interfere with the single judge's order and dismissed the application, noting that the applicants still had the option to repeat their application for stay of execution before the Supreme Court under rule 20(2) of CI 16.
R U L I N G
ADUAMA OSEI JA:
On the 15th of July, 2014, the Defendants/Respondents/ Appellants/Applicants, hereinafter called “the Applicants”, filed an appeal to the Supreme Court against a judgment of this Court. They followed up the Notice of Appeal with an application for stay of execution of the said judgment. That application was heard by a single judge of this Court on the 10th of November, 2014 under article 138 of the 1992 Constitution and it was dismissed as having no merit.
The Applicants have come back to this Court under article 138(b) of the Constitution praying the Court, as duly constituted, to discharge the order made by the single judge on the 10th of November, 2014. From the affidavit supporting the application, the reason why the Applicants want to have the order of the single judge discharged is that, having regard to the law, the affidavit evidence they placed before the single judge entitled the Applicants to a grant of stay of execution. In moving the application their Counsel has submitted that the single judge refused the application because he failed to appreciate the “nugatory principle” that guides the grant of applications for stay of execution.
The Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent/Respondent, hereinafter called “the Respondent”, is opposing the application. He has noted in his affidavit that rule 20(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, CI 16, deals specifically with the course open to an appellant from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court whose application in the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution fails. He has contended that since rule 20(2) of CI 16 is a specific provision, it overrides any general provision elsewhere, including article 138(b) of the Constitution.
Article 138(b) of the 1992 Constitution is in the following words:
“138. A single justice of the Court of Appeal may exercise a power vested in the Court of Appeal not involving the decision of a cause or matter before the Court of Appeal, except that –
“….. (b) in civil matters, any order, direction or decision made or given in exercise of the powers conferred by this article, may be varied, discharged or reversed by the Court of Appeal as duly constituted”.
There is no question, from the above-quoted provision that where, under article 138 of the Constitution, a single justice of this Court exercises the power vested in the Court, the Court as duly constituted has jurisdiction to vary, discharge or reverse the order of the single justice. It is true that