REV. ROCHER DE-GRAFT SEFA & ANOR v. BANK OF GHANA & ANOR

RULING

GBADEGBE JSC:-

We have before us a notice of motion at the instance of the Applicant herein that invites us to reverse or discharge the decision of a single Justice of this court dated 29 July 2014. Although at the hearing both parties proceeded with the matter as though it was brought under our review jurisdiction, it appears that the matter before us relates to the exercise of the power conferred on us under article 134(b) of the Constitution, which is expressed in the words that follow:

“A single Justice of the Supreme Court may exercise power vested in the Supreme Court not involving the decision of a cause or matter before the Supreme Court, except that in civil matters, any order, direction or decision made or given under this article may be varied, discharged or reversed by the Supreme Court, constituted by three Justices of the Supreme Court.”

In our view the form of the application which refers to our review jurisdiction should not prevent us from dealing with the matter as one which substantively seeks our interference with the order of this court presided over by a single Justice dated 29 July 2014 by which the Respondent herein obtained an order in her favour to adduce further evidence in the appeal herein. Indeed, subsequent to the said order of the court, the Respondent on or about 04 August 2014 filed an affidavit by way of further evidence in terms of the order of 29 July. The circumstances in which the application for leave to adduce further evidence had arisen have been adequately dealt with in the judgment of our worthy brother at pages 3 – 4 of the said delivery that is exhibited to the application herein as IGIST-3 and accordingly in our ruling we would not detain the precious time of this court by referring to those matters except in so far as any such fact is relevant for the purpose of our decision.

We think that the application herein presents us with an opportunity under article 134(b) to reconsider the application of the Respondent that resulted in the ruling of 29 July which gave accession to her prayer that she be enabled to lead further evidence under rule 76 of the Supreme Court Rules, CI 16. In this regard, since the application is derived from a constitutional power vested in us by article 134 (b) of the Constitution and involves the exercise of a discretionary power by the court acting by a single Justice thereof, what we have to consider is whether in reaching his decision, the learned justice acted in accorda