PEPRAH II v. BROWN AND ANOTHER
1960
COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
- KORSAH, C.J.
- VAN LARE, J.A.
- GRANVILLE SHARP, J.A
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
1960
COURT OF APPEAL
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The respondents raised a preliminary objection concerning the court's jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, arguing that the appeal must fall within section 3 of the Court of Appeal Ordinance. The case involved an appeal from the High Court's refusal to issue a certiorari order. The court referenced prior decisions in Re Okine and Re Amponsah, reinforcing that an appellate court can only entertain appeals granted by statute. As the appeal did not meet the criteria under section 3, the court found it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.
Van Lare, J.A. delivered the judgment of the court. (His lordship referred to the history of the matter and continued.)
[p.170]
The respondents have taken a preliminary objection as to the court's jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, viz., that the appeal can lie only if it comes within the ambit of section 3 of the Court of Appeal Ordinance. It is an appeal from a final judgment or decision of the Divisional Court sitting in its original jurisdiction; it is not an appeal in a criminal matter; it cannot be regarded as a claim or question respecting money, goods or other matter, or a civil right, over the amount or value of £G100. Therefore (they submit) the appeal cannot lie.
It is conceded that certiorari is a method by which the High Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction over inferior courts; and this is an appeal from a ruling by which the High Court has refused to make the order of certiorari sought. It is contended that the right, civil in nature, in respect of which the application is made in this case cannot be quantified in terms of money. We are of opinion that in the light of the recent decisions of this court in Re Okine and others No.1 [1960] G.L.R. 84 and also in Re Amponsah and Another [1960] G.L.R. 140 we are bound to uphold the contention that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. The arguments addressed to us in the instant appeal, both on behalf of the respondents and of the appellant, are substantially the same as in the two other cases to which we have referred. No useful purpose can be served by re-iterating the arguments and the decision of this court on the points raised.
Upon Dr. Danquah's argument, however, that certiorari is not a civil matter and that therefore the appeal is not brought under section 3 of the Court of Appeal Ordinance, we may say that if he is right then he will be completely out of court. If the appeal is not brought under section 3, he has no right of appeal to this court, because he has not been able to refer us to any enactment conferring on this court jurisdiction to entertain an appeal of this sort. We repeat what we said in Re Amponsah (at p.146).
"We are clearly of the opinion that an appellate court has no inherent jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an order or decision given by a court below it. In all causes or matters an appeal lies only if given by statute."
We may conclude, however, by observing that although in the past this court has entertained appeals in m