NUMO AKWETEY AWULEY (DCD.) v. NUMO AKWETEY AWULEY (DECEASED)
2025
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- PWAMANG JSC (PRESIDING)
- GAEWU JSC
- DZAMEFE JSC
- MENSAH JSC
- BARTELS-KODWO JSC
- AMALEBOBA JSC
- ACKAAH-BOAFO JSC
Areas of Law
- Constitutional Law
- Civil Procedure
2025
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
A seven‑Justice panel of the Supreme Court of Ghana, per a majority opinion signed by Pwamang JSC (presiding), Gaewu JSC, Dzamefe JSC, Mensah JSC, Bartels‑Kodwo JSC, and Amaleboba JSC, dismissed an application that sought review, under Article 133, of a three‑Justice ruling issued pursuant to Article 134(b). The case arose from a land dispute litigated in the High Court, Tema, and affirmed by the Court of Appeal. After service of Civil Form 6, the Applicant failed to file a statement of case and the Supreme Court struck out the appeal. The Applicant’s relisting motion was dismissed by a single Justice and a three‑Justice panel. In the Supreme Court, the Respondent raised a preliminary objection that Article 134(b) decisions are final and not amenable to Article 133 review. The majority adopted a purposive interpretive approach, emphasizing judicial economy and the distinct interlocutory regime of Article 134. It held that Article 133 review does not extend to Article 134(b) decisions and dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Ackaah‑Boafo JSC dissented, asserting that Article 133 permits review of any Supreme Court decision and urging that the matter be heard on the merits.
<u>MAJORITY OPINION</u>
My Lords, before us is an application stated to be pursuant to article 133 of the Constitution, 1992, praying for a review of a decision of the court constituted by a bench of three Justices, dated 25th November, 2025. The applicant felt aggrieved with a judgement of the Court of Appeal in a land matter delivered on 25th January, 2024 and filed a Notice of Appeal against the said judgment in this court. The applicant was subsequently served with Form 6 on 17th July 2024 notifying him that the record of appeal had been prepared and transmitted to the Supreme Court. However, the applicant failed to file appellant’s statement of case as required by the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I.16) and the Registrar, in line with these Rules, listed the case on a summons for non-compliance.
On 28th January 2025 the court struck out the appeal for non-compliance. The applicant then filed a motion supported by an affidavit praying for the appeal to be relisted and for time to be extended for him to file appellant’s statement of case. This application was placed before a single Justice of the court under article 134 of the Constitution. The judge heard the application which was opposed and dismissed it. The applicant thereafter filed an application pursuant to article 134(b) of the Constitution before a bench of three Justices of the Supreme Court and prayed for them to reverse the decision of the single Justice. This application too was opposed and after hearing the parties through their lawyers the bench of three Justices dismissed it. It is that dismissal that the applicant seeks to have reviewed under article 133 of the Constitution.
The applicant in his affidavit in support states that the effect of the decision of the three member bench is to visit the sins of his former lawyer on him since the Form 6 was served on that lawyer and he failed to act within the time frame of the Rules. He says that in the interest of doing substantial justice in the case, the decision should be reversed for the matter of ownership of the land in issue to be determined on its merits.
The respondent on the other hand has promptly taken objection to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain the application on the ground that proceedings under article 134 of the Constitution end with the three member bench of the Supreme Court and there is no right of further review under article 133. Besides the point of jurisdiction, the respondent contends in