REPUBLIC v HIGH COURT, SUNYANI; EX PARTE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
January 22, 1997
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- AIKINS
- AMPIAH
- ADJABENG
- ATUGUBA
- AKUFFO JJSC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Administrative Law
January 22, 1997
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Justice Aikins JSC, writing for the Supreme Court of Ghana, addressed an application by the Presbyterian Church of Ghana to quash a High Court order made by Gyaesayor J during ongoing litigation with Rev. C. E. N. Doku over occupation of the Church’s manse at Nkoranza. After the Church closed its case, Doku sought an interim payment of ¢500,000, invoking humanitarian grounds to maintain his standard of living. The High Court, purporting not to prejudge, nonetheless ordered the Church to pay six months’ salary “purely on humanitarian grounds.” The Supreme Court restated certiorari principles, including that supervisory relief lies for speaking orders whose reasons are bad in law and for errors of law apparent on the record, citing authorities such as Anisminic, Northumberland, and Tomlinson. It held the interim award flowed from Doku’s unproven counterclaim, improperly prejudged issues requiring proof, and was legally baseless. The Court granted certiorari and quashed the order.
Aikins JSC delivered the ruling of the court. This is an application for certiorari to bring up and quash the decision of the High Court, Sunyani (Gyaseour J.) dated 12 June :1996.
On 25 January 1995 the Presbyterian Church of Ghana filed a writ in the High Court, Sunyani titled:
“Presby Church, Ghana, Ghana Law Reports [1997-98] 1 GLR Sunyani V Rev C E N Doku, The Manse of the Presby Church, Nkoranza.” On receipt of the writ the defendant filed a statement of defence on 11 October 1996 in which he stated that he was entitled to live in the manse because "the dispute over his retirement has not been resolved."
He then counterclaimed for:
"(a) the gross monthly salaries of the remaining seventeen years of his service;
(b) the payment of ¢162,008 with interest at the current bank rate being part of his entitlements; and
(c) an order of perpetual injunction restraining the plaintiffs or their agents or both from interfering in any way with the defendant's stay in the manse until the final determination of their case."
From the foregoing, the court was faced, inter alia, with the following issues for determination:
(a) whether or not the defendant's continued occupation of the manse at Nkoranza is justifiable;
(b) whether or not the defendant has been lawfully retired; and
(c) whether or not the defendant is entitled to the monthly salaries of the remaining seventeen years of his service, and the payment of ¢ 162,008 being part of his entitlements.
The record shows that after the plaintiff had closed its case and the defendant was due to open his defence, the defendant filed a motion on notice at the High Court, Sunyani on 18 April 1996 asking for an order of the court for payment to himself by the plaintiff of cash the sum of ¢500,000 on grounds stated in the accompanying affidavit, namely paragraph (12) thereof, ie "as a temporary measure to enable the defendant to honour his duty or obligation to maintain his standard of living out of just and favourable working conditions and in the event of lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."
In granting the application the presiding judge ordered that "purely on humanitarian grounds and without prejudging the issues set down for trial, the church is to pay six months' salary to the defendant-applicant."
The omnious question that looms for resolution is whether Gyaesayor J had jurisdiction to entertain the motion