Try asking the following...
RULING
MAJORITY OPINIONS
GBADEGBE JSC:
My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment about to be read by my worthy brother, Dotse JSC in these proceedings and much as I think that the said delivery has raised interesting points of law and in particular the need for those responsible for carrying out the objectives of Economic and Organised Crime Office Act, 2010 (Act 804)to comply with the provisions of the law, I am unable for reasons that follow shortly to agree with the conclusion therein reached by him. In my thinking, as certiorari is a discretionary remedy, the applicant by waiting so long is not only out of time by virtue of the rules of this court but applying the decision of this court in the case of The Republic v High Court, Accra Ex parte Nil Nueh Odonkor, Suit Number J5/26/2014 dated 22 July 2014 (Unreported)to the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that the period from the making of the order of 19 December 2012 to the date the application herein was filed- 14 March 2014 is too long to ripen such a stale application into an effective application in so far as the ninety days rule goes and accordingly as the applicant has not been able to provide any reasons for such inordinate delay, this should be fatal to the application. This aside, an applicant who seeks to invoke our jurisdiction by way of judicial review in the nature of certiorari is deemed to know the time limit provided by rule 62 of the Supreme Court Rules and yet seeks no order from us extending such time in his favour must face the attributes that arise from such a delay. In my opinion once the application before us is out of time, we cannot inquire into it on the merits. In this regard, notice is taken of the fact that before the applicant’s journey out of the jurisdiction of this court, he was indeed aware that his account had been frozen as indeed, he testified to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of his supporting affidavit, a fact which renders his failure to seek an order extending time in his favour quite unacceptable particularly when acting by counsel.
It is observed that although the rules contained in Part Six of CI 16, the Supreme Court Rules, have made no express provision for extension of time in relation to applications that come under this part, I think that the existence of that rule in rule 60 in relation to Part Five, which regulates review applications is a clear indication that the rules recognise the power of the court when so satisfied