THE REPUBLIC v. HIGH COURT, ACCRA, EX PARTE: NII NUEH ODONKOR

RULING

ATUGUBA, JSC (FOR THE MAJORITY)

On 22/4/2014 the applicant herein filed this application seeking:

“i. An order of certiorari to bring up into this Court for purposes of being quashed the order of the High court (financial Division) Coram: His Lordship Justice Bright Mensah dated 19th February, 2013 Seizing and Forfeiting the US 22,480 belonging to the Applicant lodged in 024204416729501 (USD ACCOUNT) and 0240034416729501 (GHC ACCOUNT) with the 3rd Respondent to the state.

ii. An order of certiorari to bring up into this Court for the purposes of being quashed the ruling of the High Court Coram His Lordship Justice Bright Mensah dated 14th March, 2014 dismissing the Application to set aside the Order of Seizure and Forfeiture of Tainted Assets.

iii. An order of certiorari to bring up into this Court for the purposes of being quashed the order confirming the continuous freezing of the account of the Applicant held with the 3rd Respondent dated 23rd February, 2013.”

There is some fluctuation as to dates. Whilst the applicant dates the first order sought to be quashed the 19th February 2013, the 1st respondent dates it the 19th day of February 2012. Similarly while the applicant dates the third impugned order the 23rd day of February 2013, his exhibit NN01 dates it the 23rd day of February 2012. It is the latter dates that are correct.

In any case it is quite clear that this application has been brought not less than one year after the occurrence of the relevant events called into question by the applicant.

This court has stated time without number that the discretionary nature of the remedy of certiorari is not prejudiced by the incidence of nullity of the proceedings sought to be quashed. This principle has recently been emphasized in The Republic v 1. The High Court, Accra 2. Nana Yaa Konadu Exparte Alhaji Abdul Rashid, CM J5/13/2014 dated 13/2/2014, S.C unreported. Perhaps it is necessary to explain that the mere fact that rules of court on time limits cannot shut out an application in respect of proceedings that are a nullity does not mean the relief sought will be granted pro tanto. The discretionary nature of certiorari still applies in relation to it. Since even when an application for certiorari brought within time limits can still be refused for tardiness it would be pessimi exempli to hold that tardiness cannot, as a matter of discretion defeat a certiorari application brought outside the statutory time limit. Cases which tend to hold