MOST REV. DR. ROBERT ABOAGYE MENSAH & ORS v. YAW BOAKYE
2021
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- APPAU, JSC (PRESIDING)
- PROF. KOTEY, JSC
- AMADU, JSC
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Alternative dispute resolution
2021
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In the Supreme Court of Ghana, AMADU JSC delivered a ruling on a review application under Article 134(b) of the 1992 Constitution. The Applicant sought to set aside a single Justice’s order adopting parties’ Terms of Settlement as consent judgment in a pending appeal. The Court recounted that the settlement was executed on 1 July 2014, filed on 11 September 2014, and adopted on 12 November 2014 at the Applicant’s own instance. Addressing jurisdiction and timing, the Court held that settlement extinguishes the original cause, and adoption by a single Justice does not involve deciding the merits. It emphasized that review jurisdiction is exceptional and typically subject to prompt invocation akin to Rule 55 of C.I. 16. Finding no illegality, exceptional circumstances, or miscarriage of justice, and noting the six-year delay, the Court dismissed the application.
RULING
AMADU JSC:-
This is a review application at the instance of the Defendant/ Respondent/Appellant/Applicant (hereinafter referred to as “the Applicant”) pursuant to Article 134(b) of the 1992 Constitution. The ground of the application is that this Court constituted by a single justice as provided under Article 134 of the 1992 Constitution lacked the jurisdiction to adopt the terms of settlement executed between the Plaintiffs/Appellants/Respondents/ Respondents (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondents”) and the Applicant. The Terms of Settlement signed by the parties on 1st July, 2014 was filed in the Registry of this Court on 11th September, 2014. Subsequently, in order to secure the adoption of the terms of settlement as agreed by the parties, the Applicant filed an application in the registry of this Court headed in the following terms:
“MOTION ON NOTICE: APPLICATION FOR TERMS OF SETTLEMENT FILED ON 11TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 TO BE ADOPTED AS THE CONSENT JUDGMENT OF THE PARTIES”.
In the affidavit in support, the Applicant deposed in paragraphs 9 and 11 as follows:-
9. “That pursuant to negotiations intended to achieve an
amicable settlement of the issues joined in the appeal and all consequential matters, the parties have resolved this suit amicably on the terms contained in the terms of settlement as filed in the Registry of this Court on 11th September, 2014.”
11. “That I am advised by counsel and verily believe same to be
true that per clause (A)11 of the said Terms of Settlement filed in the Registry of this Court on 11th September, 2014, the parties herein agreed that to have the terms filed and adopted by this Honourable Court as the consent judgment of the parties. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit ‘GAL’ is a photocopy of the Terms of Settlement filed in the registry of this court.”
On 12th November, 2014 this Court constituted by a single justice adopted the terms of settlement as prayed by the Applicant and ordered as follows:- “These terms of settlement filed, are hereby adopted as a consent judgment of the suit between the parties.”
More than six years after the adoption of the terms of settlement as consent judgment, the Applicant has filed the instant application contending that, this court, as constituted by a single justice, lacked the jurisdiction to adopt the terms of settlement as consent judgment. The Applicant, relying on Article 134(b) of the 1992 Constitution, contended that the adoption of the terms of settleme