2015
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Supreme Court addressed an appeal seeking reversal of a single Justice's decision denying leave to file supplementary documents in a review application. The case, involving the construction of a will, introduced new facts not initially raised, which the court found inappropriate and unjust to the respondents. The refusal was upheld, emphasizing the importance of consistency in pleadings and proper exercise of judicial discretion. References to relevant case law supported the decision, affirming the principle that new matters cannot be conveniently raised at advanced stages of proceedings.
GBADEGBE JSC:-
We have before us an application that seeks the reversal of the decision of
a single Justice of this court that refused to grant leave to the Applicants
herein to file a supplementary affidavit and supplementary statement of
case in a pending review application before this court.
The background to the application herein is that following the decision of
this court in an appeal involving the parties herein, the applicant filed a
motion for review of the decision of the ordinary bench. It repays to say
that the case which was contested from the trial court and culminated in
the decision of the ordinary bench of this court on 17 July 2014 was
concerned simply with the construction of the will and indeed, the review
application that was filed by the Applicants herein on 15 August 2014 dealt
only with issues that alleged misconstruction of the will the subject matter
of the action herein by the ordinary bench. Following the filing of the
review application, the Applicants applied to the court presided over by a
single Justice for leave to be enabled to file a supplementary affidavit and
statement of case in the review application. After hearing the parties, the
learned judge refused to yield to the invitation of the Applicants.
Dissatisfied with the said ruling, the Applicants are now before us by virtue
of article 134 of the 1992 Constitution for a reversal of the decision. By the
application herein, we are enabled to reconsider the application which was
refused on 15 August 2014 and in particular determine whether the order
of 15 August 2014 was a proper exercise of discretion by the learned judge
whose decision we are entitled to treat with respect and reverse same only
if we are satisfied that the refusal was an injudicious exercise of discretion.
We have examined the grounds of the application and in particular the
contention that the learned Justice whose decision is before us for
reconsideration did not exercise the discretion conferred on him properly
and wish to say at once that we think that that decision was correctly
pronounced. As we are in agreement with the single Justice’s decision and
the reasons provided therefore, we do not think it necessary to repeat the
said reasons in the course of our determination of the instant application.
We are of the view that faced with the nature of the application before
him; the single Justice could not have reached a different conclusion. We
are also of the opin