Try asking the following...
J U D G M E N T
ATUGUBA, J.S.C:
The main issue raised by this Review application is whether the decision of this court (by 4-1 majority) dated 19/5/2011 that article 20(5) and (6) of the 1992 constitution is inapplicable to the La Wireless Station Land situate, lying and being at Cantonments, Accra, because the said land had been compulsorily acquired by the State in 1947, long before the advent of the said constitution, should be reversed.
The Review jurisdiction of this court is laid down in article 133(l) of the constitution as follows:
“133 Power of the Supreme Court to review its decision
The Supreme Court may review any decision made or given by it on such grounds and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by Rules of Court.”
Pursuant to this rule 54 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.1.16) provides thus:
“54. Grounds for review
The Court may review a decision made or given by it on the ground of exceptional circumstances which have resulted in a miscarriage of justice; or the 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 the applicant at the time when the decision was given.” (e.s)
The present application is plainly premised on r.54(a) and does not involve r.54 (b).
It is very trite learning that r.54(a) has been construed to mean the incidence of a fundamental or basic error which has occasioned substantial injustice to a party.
Per Incuriam Decisions
It is indisputable that one of the settled fundamental or basic errors that a court can commit is to give a decision per incuriam. This means, as is well known, in its technical context of the doctrine of stare decisis that the decision overlooked consideration of a provision of a statute or a binding decision of a court, such as would have affected the outcome of such a decision were it considered. Otherwise the ordinary meaning of per incuriam is through oversight. Thus in Republic v Tetteh [2003-2004] SCGLR 140 this court unanimously reversed its earlier decision because it had overlooked certain mandatory statutory provisions relating to the rendition of Court-Martial decisions.
Inadequate Consideration of a Case
In Ellis Tamakloe v The Republic [J7A/1/2010] dated 20/1/2011 this court dealt with the situation where a court in reaching its decision has given inadequate consideration to vital matters, by overlooking them. But inadequate consideration of a c