MURIEL ABREFI ODURO v. ISAAC KWAME ACHEAMPONG
2013
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
- BENIN, J.S.C
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
- Constitutional Law
2013
SUPREME COURT
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court considered an application for special leave to appeal from an applicant who missed the appeal deadline in a case concerning land title and possession. The applicant argued the case involved substantial legal questions and errors by the appellate court. The Court applied established principles for special leave, determining no visible prima facie error or novel law issue existed, but the public advantage criterion warranted review. Recognizing potential appellate error in re-evaluating trial court facts and unpleaded facts effect, the Court granted the special leave to appeal.
RULING
BENIN, JSC:-
Article 131 of the 1992 Constitution under which this application has been brought has these material provisions:
(1) An appeal shall lie from a judgment of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court-……..(b) with the leave of the Court of Appeal, in any other cause or matter, where the case was commenced in a court lower than the High Court or a Regional Tribunal and where the Court of Appeal is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law or is in the public interest.
(2) Notwithstanding clause 1 of this article, the Supreme Court may entertain application for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in any cause or matter, civil or criminal, and may grant leave accordingly.
The scope of these provisions has received interpretation from this court in some cases two of which Counsel for the respondent cited in his submissions in this application. These cases are DOLPHYNE (NO. 2) v. SPEEDLINE STEVEDORING CO LTD. (1996-97) SCGLR 373; and NSIAH v. AMANKWAAH and Others (1996-97) SCGLR 453. I will refer to these decisions very shortly.
Now the facts of this application. The respondent herein brought an action at the Circuit Court against the applicant herein, seeking a declaration of title to a piece of land and recovery of possession, among other reliefs. The Circuit Court gave judgment for the applicant. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal which by a majority of 2 to 1 reversed the decision of the Circuit Court and entered judgment for the respondent. The applicant says he desired to appeal against the Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court so he took steps to secure a copy of the Court of Appeal judgment to enable him ask for leave to appeal against same. However, by the time he secured a copy of that judgment the 14 day limitation period had expired. He applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court but was compelled to withdraw it because time had ran out hence the present application to this court under Rule 7 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I.16).
Counsel for the applicant stated in his argument that the main points they rely upon are contained in paragraph 15 of the affidavit in support of the application. For its full force and effect I set it out here:
‘That the case involves substantial questions of law namely:
i. The findings by the trial judge and determination of the Appellate Court on these findings.
ii. Part-performance and its effects on purchase of