1999
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Edward Wiredu, J.S.C., posed the central question whether the petitioners had satisfied all statutory steps necessary to invoke the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction from the National House of Chiefs. The Court discovered that the notice of appeal bore filing stamps from both the Court of Appeal in Accra and the NHC in Kumasi, with the same date but only forty minutes apart despite the 200+ kilometer distance. Evidence from NHC Registrar’s staff, Francis Mark Domenya, established that the NHC stamp was later affixed, backdated to 8:00 a.m., and no fees were paid, rendering the stamp false. Applying Article 131(4), Rule 6(1), Rule 8(3) of C.I. 16, and section 4(5) of Act 459, the Court held that filing at the proper court below is a fundamental condition, non-compliance is fatal, and fraud vitiates everything. Concluding that no appeal had been properly lodged, all Justices agreed to refuse, dismiss, or strike out the appeal.
EDWARD WIREDU, J.S.C.:
The matter before us to which this opinion relates is supposed to be an appeal against an interlocutory order of the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs.
The main issue raised for consideration by the Court is whether the Petitioners in this case who are complaining to be aggrieved by that decision have taken all the necessary steps as required by law to entitle them to a hearing?
To answer the above it must first be appreciated that the right to appeal against a decision of any lower court is conferred by Statute. In other words the right to appeal is not inherent in any litigant. It is a right conferred by statute. In like manner a courts jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal is provided by statute.
In NYE V. NYE (1957) G.I.R. 78 at page 82 and 83 Akufo-Addo, C.J. (as he then was) had this to say
"it must be appreciated that there is no right of appeal in a litigant nor is there an inherent
power in any court to hear an appeal."
In the case of MOORE V. TAGOE 1934 2 W.A.C.A. 43 at 43 - 45 per Lord Atkin write:-
"it has to be remembered that appeals in this country and elsewhere exist mainly by statute and unless statutory conditions are fulfilled no jurisdiction is given to any court of justice to entertain them"
Lastly in SANDEMA NAB V. ASANGALISA 1996 - 97 S.C. S.G.L.R.R. 302 Supreme Court had this to say;—
"Now it must be appreciated that an appeal is a creature of statute ...... where a right of appeal is conferred as of right or with leave the right is to be exercised within the four corners of the statute and the relevant procedural regulations and rules as the court will not have jurisdiction to grant deviations outside the parameters of the statute."
In the instant case the right to appeal from any decision a decision of the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs lies to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court derives its jurisdiction to hear appeals of this nature statutorily from the 1992 Constitution. The relevant provisions are
(a) Article 131(4) which provides that
"An appeal from a decision of the Judicial Committee .of the National House of Chiefs shall lie to the Supreme Court with the leave of the Judicial Committee or the Supreme Court. See also
(b) Article 273 (1) of the 1992 Constitution and Section 44 of the Courts Act 459.
Quite apart from the requirements of the Statutory provisions referred to above, there are also rules and regulations governing the procedure for