1999
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice A.K.B. Ampiah J.S.C., writing for a seven‑member Supreme Court panel presided by C. Hayfron‑Benjamin J.S.C., dismissed an application seeking review of the Court’s 16 July 1997 judgment in a long‑running land dispute. The applicant framed the review as a de facto appeal, challenging what he believed was a vesting of ownership of the entire DUASI land in the respondent and arguing that, lacking allodial title, the respondent could only receive possessory title. Invoking Rule 54 of C.I. 16 (Supreme Court Rules, 1996), the Court found no exceptional circumstances or newly discovered evidence and clarified that the prior ruling vested absolute title only in DENDEN, a parcel within DUASI, consistent with the respondent stool’s longstanding possession. The Kwadason Committee’s report was deemed non‑binding. Finding no miscarriage of justice, the Court dismissed the review application.
AMPIAH, J.S.C.
The applicant seeks a review of the Court's judgment of 16th July, 1997. I have read the Statement Of case filed by both parties in the action and the submissions made therein. It appears to me that the applicant is using this review application as an appeal by calling on this court to have a second look at its own judgment. This is not the intent and purpose of a review application.
Rule 54 of C.I. 16 (the Supreme Court Rules, 1996) requires that for the purpose of a review application, the applicant must show:—
"(a) exceptional circumstances which have resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
(b) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decision was given".
All the necessary documents which the applicant relied on were available at the time of hearing and were tendered in evidence although they were rejected by the court after an exhaustive examination of the contents and their import. No new evidence or matter which could not have been within the knowledge of the applicant at the time of the hearing has been introduced in this application. The argument now put forward in respect of these documents in this review application was canvassed at the hearing of the appeal. Rule 54(b) of C.I. 16 has not been satisfied.
With regard to the ground under Rule 54(a) of C.I. 16, the only complaint by the applicant is that the judgment has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. According to him the vesting of ownership of the whole of the DUASI LAND in the respondent was unjust as the respondent only claimed a portion of that land. Further, he argued, since the respondent was not the allodial title owner of that land, the court could only grant him, if at all, possessory title as was done by the lower courts but not an absolute title. Acquah J.S.C., delivering the leading judgment of the court, set down the various claims by the parties and dealt exhaustively with the evidence in support of these claims. Claim (1) of the Writ of the respondent (i.e. the plaintiff) described the land as 'DENDEN' and showed the boundaries of this particular land. 'DENDEN' Land according to the respondent, was part of the 'DUASI' Land. This means the 'DUASI' land was a bigger Land. The respondent explained why he was limiting his claim to only that portion of the 'DUASI' Land, even though he claimed that the whole of the 'DUAS